HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 39-94A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - TRAFFIC STUDYHCM Unsignalized IntersecL.,n Capacity Analysis 3/27/2001
15: CR 52 & CR 9 4N W
EBUMEBM'' EBRB—WB1ff9MWBTM.WE3F3W.NBWK W3,iMUN.I�MMbMMbb'Im".�b
Lane Configurations
..'St
,RP,Qbntro top
Volume - (veh/ h) 25 40
ea JjquQ,a o:, q
p "k, FV. Z
i4ou" rly flow rate (veh/h) 27 43
60 35 110 10 260
9 UZ'; 6.92: �,,OM_
65 38 120 11 283
So
Stop
010 70 10
130. 10
O.92 �2
141 11 11 76 11
Orr— --
Iqctionj, E BN1 R 11311,WN,
SBT
B111F— I
Volume Total (vph) 136 168 435 98
Z 4 !1 Volumele , (vph)._ "-27'""" W�
Volume Right (vph) 65 11 11 11
.. .......... d b ��
Departure Headway (s) 5.3 5.7 5.0 5.3
2
Tee- UtiiZation .', -7
Capacity (veh/h) 617 509 691 641
Co �9 6-A-MOY
Approach Delay (s) 9.6 10.7 15.3 9.2
.0 Approac: S A,
L
POO
HCM Level of Service
B
Service
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2020 Total PM 3/23/2001
lsaassfort-st51
Synchro 5 Report
Page
HCM Signalized Intersectioi. ;apacity Analysis
9: Country Club & North Lemay 3/27/2001
L
ER7113el.,kE13 Fi?4 �r.�',WbTr 0 X
Wv 'em e j �vt- - WBL , 00M
_�.�,IftEBLWF
Lane Configurations
'boo'*"'
ideal F1 wi yp'lhil
0'
19 '00
1 OOQ
'.1 bu'
9 �n
9*qq,:' 11 oo
i- , � , 90
1406�L�e�1900
1:1
Total Lost time (s)
-he
4.0
4.0
-.00
4.0 4.0
--"
00,
4.0 4.0 4.0
4.0
L a Util-IF
Frt
1.00
0.97
1.00 0.99
1.00 0.93 1.00
0.99
2 7-:1`2 00
Satcl. Flow (prot)
1770
1811
1770 1850
1770 1735 1770
1852
7�
O'.48�
Satd. Flow (perm)
1036
1811
892 1850
1198 1735 829
1852
Vo- lumeI. . A
Z0 220%
�220"J"1
M;-2 30:, 30
1 W
Peak hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
� : U 7�
4, 39,� 0 2,12 -�3z
.7
Lane Group Flow '-(v, h)
11
293
1 -
0 185 250
0 250 462 0 33
181 0
Tum Type
Pbrm'P
erm,-u w ITT"
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted "
2 4.4
10.2 10.2 21.8 21.8 21.8
0
21.8
Actuated Green, G (s)
10.2
10.2
Effectiv
&.2
0 2,
7. 2t&�
�,�:2V8
Actuated g/C Ratio
b.26
1. 0 26
0.26 0.26
"16. 5`5"' '6.55
0.55
...... 'Vi
Clearariic'e"T64 4 49
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0 3.0
3.0 3.0 3.0
3.0
Lane Grp,CWypP.)'�"'1-' 26
Ab
.. ..... 1� I'll-
0-
v/s Ratio Prot
iO4
0.16
0.14 c0.27
Ov
0.10
v/s Ratki. P'q'
!'
vic Ratio 0.04
0.63
0.81 6.53 0.38 0.49
0.07
0.18
Uniform
�5.2 7 �`;q
3
1.00
1.00
Progression Factor 1.00
1.00
11.00 11'.00. 1.00 1.00
Increme
03
Delay(s) 11.3
. ...... . .337 139 6.9 7.4
4.6
5.0
l fServid
Leve"
�A
Approach . - Delay (s)
15.9
22.3 7.3
4.9
"k
Approach LM"I""" '13
A
orb um a tT
_tersest
HCM Average Z6ntroMelaw
CM, Level of'Service,:�
IN,
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.59
Actuated 1 6 6-6 ift s
UM
4 9E
�1"'
8.6.
... .... ..
...
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.9% ICU Level of Service
B
eP
c,::,Critical La ro p
9111
I I 1 1.11
I
I
2020 Total PM 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Signalized Intersectio,, Capacity Analysis
7: CR 52 & CR 11-
3/27/2001
0-yern
ILa-ne Configurations
t
-it
Ideal Flow. (vphpl), 1900
1900 19001900
1900 ;1900 ' 1000,
1900
.1900 11.,.19.-00I
a�1- .
- 1- 00
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
Total
4.0
4.0
4.0-1
4.0
4.91
4.0
4.0
Line Util. Factor l . �4�00
;100
1.00
-.4.0
4'.00. t:: 1'.00
1.00
�,:-VM-
'11.00101.00.
0,
Frt 1.00
0.92
1.00
0.86 1.00
1.00
0.85
-1.90-11-0-99
Flt:Protected Oi95
1.00
0.95 -
00,�
0. 95 , . l:-
Said. Flow (prot) 1770
1723
1770
1604 170
1863
1583
1770
1850
Fit Permitted:i l:'O`66
1.00,
0 74-:.,
1. 00 0. '46; .'
VOO
Said. Flow (perm) 1227
1723
1384
1604 864
1863
1583
535
1850
Volume (yph), 'A10
10'.10
130
0'�,,� 25,,' 10.
7 05
200
80'4'a 415
:20
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92
6.92 0.92
0.92
6.62 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0 92
Agj. Flow.,(Viph)",',,j'
141'
i_
...... 6'.. .....
i �?, 1 13
ijj! jt:;e" _j
'766
7'
87
4 5
Lane Group Flow 16 (vph) 1
22 0
141
147 0 11
766
217
473
0
Turn Type. m
Pe M_
r
'Perm
.l
Pe I- r I rry
Perm,....',,
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases : 4
Actuated Green, G I s) 9.3
9.3
i!
9.3
ii 2
9.3 37.7
37.7
37.71. 37.7!iL 37.7
Effective Gr666;;6js) ���,9.3
-1 9.3 1,"
7 ,
37.7
371,��, ��,37:7
�-,��3
Actuated g/C I Ratio 1, 0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17 0.69
0.69
0.69
" ' ' '
0.69
"
0.69
4
Clearance:706-OY-,i -�, I
6
" " 4 0
4
.... ... .. ..... .
. "', &�l )�
irll,��i,� I �,4 0,
4.0'�i
-:-4.0;
Vehicle Extension (s)' i3'.0
3.0
3.0 3.0 3.0
3.0
3.0 3.0
3.0
Lane Grp-Cap,(voh) :�,�207
�,291
7 �-i,,�,�592�
1277,-��'�
367�w,,,;l
268
v/s Ratio Prot
0.01
0.09
c0.41
0.26
v/s Ratio Perm" 01
10
CO
v/c Ratio 0.05
0.08
0.60
0.54 0.02
0.60
0.20
0.24
0.37
Uniform Delay, dl i,1 9.2
1.00
1.00
1.00
23"
1.00 1.00
4.6
1.00
3s2 3'2-
1.00 1.00
1.00
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2 -6:1
0.1
4,
:-
Delay (s) 19.3
19.3
25.5
23.1 2.8
6.7
3.6
4.8
4.5
Level of Service',-
A
:,
A
Approach Delay (s)
19.3
24.3
6.0
4.5
Approach LOS
B
A
:
X
HCM Average'Control Delay
= 8.6
HCM11-evel ofService:,
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length ,(s):."
0.60
�'65.0
. .....
�Z�,I ;,
. Sumof lost (s).
8 0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
69.6%
ICU Level of Service
B
c . Criticall-ane Gro6p'
7
L
11
I
I
2020 Total PM 3/23/2001
Isaassfort-st51
Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
' HCM Signalized Intersectioi, Capacity Analysis
' 3• Country Club & CR 11 3/27/2001
nta <" E$(�EBT �_ EBR""", VVt3LW„t3,la`. VYI3HNt3L as SIVt31.rIvatt.7oLx,oa� oo"
fVlovement� e
Lane Configurations Vi
T*
T+,
�.
Ideal Elow (vphpl) " 1900 •1900
. 1900 ;1900
190, .;.
1900 . s1900
.1900,
1900 1900
1900 1900
'
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
4.0
1 00
4.0
1 00 '„
4.0
1 00
4.0
1 00
4.0
1'00
4.0
100
4.0 4.0
0 95 0 95
Lane UtiL,Factor 1 00
_
ry
Frt 1.00
•
0.97
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99
1.00
100 0.85
Fit Protected 0 95
1 00.
0 95
1 00
095
100
0 95 1 00 1 00
'
Satd Flow (prof) 1770
1805
1770
1838
1770
1845
'.00
1770
1770 1504
Fit Perrriitted' 0168
1.00°
0 57
�> 1 00
s',; 0.40
0 3i
1 00 1,00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1264
1805
1060
1838
744
1845
585
1770 1504
'
Volume (vph) „, , , °' ; 245
175'
45 :, ; 10
102 10 ;':155
522
35 20
92
435 145,
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0
0 92 0 92
Adj:`Flow.(ph
49 `; 11
111„' 11 168
$67..
38 22
�473 158
Lane Group Flow (vph) 266
239
"
0 11
122 0 168
665
,, ,,;
0 22
Perm
473 158
Turn Type„ r Perm
Perm.
..,..
nx, ..,Perm
tip s,. „Perm
ti..` ..�,
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted•Phases ,> „4
G 13.1
13 1
8
13.1
2
13 1 23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9 23.9
Actuated Green (s)
Effectwe Green,,9 (s) 13 1
1„8 1 .
13 1. _
u 1
23.9
23 9
23 9 23 9: 23 9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29
0.29
0.29
r13 „
0.29
0.53
0.53
t
0.53
" 0.53 0.53
'
Clearance=Time (s) 4.0
-4.0
4.0
4, 0
4 Q,
3.0 3.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp•Cap (vph) 368
525
309
535
395
980
311 ' 940 799
'
.
v/s Ratio Prot
0.13
0.07
c0.33
0 27
0 11'
v/s Ratio Perm ' c021
0 23
Q`04
a
v/c Ratio 0.72
0.46
0.04
0 23
0 43
0.62
0.07
6.50 0.20
'
Uniform Delay, d1 143
13 0
1.00
11 4 12
1.60 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay,,d2 69
? .
...._.:3 3
2'.9:
'
Delay (s) 21 2
C
13.7
v B
11.5
12.3
9.7
AB,;
10.3
5.6
A
8.7 6.1
A. A
��.
Level of Service y;
„
4.
Approach Delay (s)
17.6
12.3
10.2
7.9
Approach LCS
B
B
B
A
IntersectionSumrriaryy
r'- F.7"�`-
HCM Average Control Delay
a r
11.4 , 1HCWLevel of Secvlce
B
'
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
0.65
45.0 Sum of lost timw(s).,' "
: ,
8.0
";
Intersection Capacity Utilization
72.0% ICU
Level of Service
C
c Critical, Lane Group ?,
" =
' 2020 Total PM 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCIVI Unsignalized Intersect"n Capacity Analysis 3/27/2001
15: CR-52 & CR 9—
Lane Configurations
-77ri
,`Signco- 6irol
top'
St6" e
-
Grade
0%
W.
0%
0%
0%
V mej
olu
J 0::�'1' 5�,%-23&,,
�,:;t'IT --00,
�mI 60 0
I ,
Peak 'Hour Factor"
'0.92 6.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly (Ve
flowrate
Pedestrians
L 666' W 1
Right turn flare (veh)
3:P?
Median ty"pp"- None';''
, , 1�1,
� .. ....
Median storage veh)
vG conflictirg,volume 443
VC1, st;
vC21 sty
tC, sinc
f
tF (s)
06qye,i
cm cap
I
11
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
1
conf vol
vo
�!
Ny -F!1�1�,
1 ,
7.1 6.5
6.2
7-'1--'
6 .5 6.2 4.1
4.1
..4.0
3.5
3.5
3.3 2.2
2.2
98
'veh/hI
481 475
863
178
477 1045 1390
1572
Volume Total 386
,-33
136,-
6
.....
Volume Left
11
11
98
11
Volume Righf, 250
TI
I ;
1
cSH
671
346
1390
1572
-� -1
Volume t c apac
*07:-
VO
Queue Length (ft)
92
8
6
1
Control
T4'
JI'6.6-
-�:5.8
f7T,-,, .....
Lane LOS
C
C
A
A
Approach Delay :17.4
z16 -5'"�,
5 8
--- -- ------- ... . ...
,
Approach LOS
C
C
Average Delay 10.8 Seance Iritersectight"C 1)-6'c'it'V Utilization �,54.7% 111;��,.�]CU.Level.of, A
2020 Total AM 3/23/2001
Isaassfort-st51
Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersectio„ Capacity Analysis
' 9: Country Club & North Lemay 3/27/2001
-�* t `► 1 -V
I
i
n
I
1
Lane Configurations
�►
G�
_
.
ideal Flow (Vphpl) 190& -1900
1900 ;'. 1900;
1900 '1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
,.1900
- 1.900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
4.0
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane.Util. Factor
1.00
°;: 1 00
: 1 00
1.00
-.1'00
1 0,
1;:00
.. .
,4.00
Frt 1.00
0.94
1.00
,
0.99
1.00
0.95
100
0.99
FIt;Protected 0.95,
,.1.00.
0 95
. 1 00
0 95
1`.00
0 95
1':00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770
1745
1770
1844
1770
1779
1770
1846
FIT.Permitted' ; 0.65.;
1.00.
0 39
-.1,00 ,,.."'`
0 64
1r00
0.65
1:00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1218
1745
727
1844
1189
1779
1218
1846
Volume (vph) 25..
235,
170 285 >' 140 10
: 65
105
-45' 30
160"
10
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj'.;Flow (Vph) 27"
; 255'
185;' 310
152 1.1
71
'1.14
49 33
Y74
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27
440
0 310
163 0
71
163
0 33
185
0
Turn Type.
..
Perm
;,°.,..wp ..
. erm ..,
,._. X..,_....
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases ,:
2
=° if
Actuated Green, G (s)
274°
.8
27.8
27 8
27 8
24.2
24 2
24.2
24.2
Effective Green,,9:(S) _
27;8:
.27:8
27 8 27 8
.............
24.2
.:24 2
i24 2
-,..
24 2
--
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
Clearance Time (s) -
4:0
4:0
", _, 4 0
: • 4 0, - , .
4 0
4 0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap-(vph): - `'
= 564
809:
337 ,;:
854
480:718`
,.,
,' .. 491 �745
v/s Ratio Prot
0.25
0.09
0.09
c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm
0.02�
60.43
0.06
0 03
v/c Ratio
0.05
0.54
0 92
0 19
0.115
0 23
0 07
0 25
Uniform Delay, d1. ''
8.8
11.6
15 1,.
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.39
1.33
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
`•
Incremental` Delay, d2
0.0--.,
0.8
:' 28 9 :
6.6%
Q 7_
03
0:8' `!
Delay (s)
8.9
12.3
49.8
12.7
12.0
12.5
11.2
12.7
Level of Service ::r
A
B'
:_ D.
"r' B
B
8
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
12.1
37.0
12.3
12.4
Approach LOS'. .< ,..
:..
= B ,
�; ..r. ., -.:;:'
"'. B
..k..
B
HCM Average Control,Delay ;F 20.7 - ,.HCM -Level of Service `,��C - e
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0` Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% -ICU Level of Service B
c . «Critical Lane'Grou
2020 Total AM 3/23/2001
Isaassfort-st51
Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
I
I
I
I
J
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
HCM Signalized Intersectio.. Capacity Analysis 3/27/2001
7: CR-52 & CR 11-
Lane Configurations
T#
+
,r
ldealFlow(' hpl) '
'
,�
,F
400�19
1�A90,1
�q0
,
00g
19 0
I
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
4,0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.4,00
"1'.00
too
too"
1:00
1.00'":
1, 00
1 00
-V :001"',
Frt' 1.00
0.92
1.00
0.88
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
FWProtected'.
.::0.95
0.95
10 0
14�00
0
Sat , d. Flow - (prot) 1770
1723
1770
1 646'
1770
1863
1583
1770
1859
Flt,Permitted :'�, 6 72
'�I'.'00'
,
�A' 00j°
0.22
.100
'
4.'60
Satd. Flow (perm) 1345
1723
1384
1640
416
1863
1583
1114
1859
Volume (vph)�
10'7•,'175
, �1 w 2
10
"80
LAI 795 10
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
9.92
0.92 0.92
) � - """ I
�qj, Flow (Yph ' 1,.!:
- t 1
'22
`�;� 11,
90
1 43
2 6T
,�:*��8 T;
1120' 864;� Y
Lane Group Flow (vp
o
�
190
... �4 0
11
261
87
120
875 0
Tdrn Type. i
Perm,
Perm
Perm Perm
N.
Protected Phases
4
8
2
61
�
Permitted Phases W
8
2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0
11.0
mo
11.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
Effective'Grebin', g (s)� .11 'o,
"i 1.0
-6.16,
11.0
:41 6�,
Actuated uated g/C Ratio 0.18
0.18
0.18
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Time Clearance Ti .(s)
4.0,
4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) ;�-,'247
116
254,
',,'301
=284
1273'
'1082
Z61 1270::
v/s Ratio Prot
1
0.01
0.03
0.14
cb. 4_7
V/s Ratio Perm
P0.14
6.03
005
''�011
v/c Ratio
6.04
0.07
6.75
6.18
0.04
0.21
0.08
0.16 0.69
Uniform De*,.di.
202
::'�0.3
23.2�'
�t,W�7�"
1'�,
3� 5;.:
3
. S.4; "gE
.. .
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
0.66
0.33
.... ...
1.0-0- 1.00--,
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1,
L0.1
'O.3
',0.4
o
04 .... .. . .. .....
De . lay (s)
202
k4
34.6
21.0
2.3
2.7
1.2
3.8 8.8
Level of Service
C
;'',
C
C
A
A
A
Approach D I elay (s)
1 2. . 0.3
31.6
2.3
8..2
Approach LOS
C
- A
HCM Average Control'Delay; 10.6
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio I , 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length, (s), �'; 60.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7%
c Critical Lane Group
2020 Total AM 3/23/2001
lsaassfort-st51
HCM-Leve[of Service
surrof l6if time'�(S)
ICU Level of Service
B,
o
C
Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
' HCM Signalized Intersectiod. Capacity Analysis
3: Country Club & CR 11 3/27/2001
I
1
1
�L li
1
11
1
11
Lane Configurations
1
T+
T f'
Ideal Flow{vphpl)` 1900
<1900
1900 ; 1900
1900" 1900 `z1900
G
1900
1900 19Q0 1900,; 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4 0
4.0
4.0
4 0
4.0
4 0
4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util Factor^ ° " 100
1:00`
1 00
1r 00
�� t 00
x1 00
1 Oq 1, OOp 1 "00
.f.,rcnu M i. w.e X. nv
h
we.neew -. -.n.'..
Frt 1.00
0.93
1.00
.
0.99
v`.wx„l s.. +'vn . Y....
v
1.00
un amv .
0.99
1.00 100 0.85
FIY.Protectedc 0 95
1 00
0 95
_
1 00
0`95
_........ ..
Satd. Flow (prof) 1770
.. ..
1731
-
1770
1843
1770
1853
1770 1863 1583
FItPerm�tted0 6,
too,0
57
1 00'„
s ; E °
0 57� Sx1'00> 1�00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1223
1731
1057
1843
„
592
1853
1071 1863 1583 83
Peak hour factor, 11 PHF 0.92
0.92
0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj:, Flow (vph) 130
103.
92 11 147 11 { 76 293
Nf 3 {
11 x 11 696 z 201.
,._ .
_ _= t ._._ ..•
Lane Group Flow (vph) 130
195
- .. .....w __...._.._.._.._._ . _.. -
0 11 158 0 76 304
-
0 11 696 201
Turn Type... Perm
',...:,:_Perm ., :...`-
s:` w.. Perm.:..,`
a ..,
...: �� .Perm.....,
2
6
Protected Phases
4
8
Permitted
'`6L d+
,
1
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1
9 1
1 3
9 1 9 1 32 9 2 9
.9 .9
32 9 32 9 32.9
Effective Green, ga(s) 9 1
9 14
9 1 9 1 32 9 32 9
32 9 32 9'"5 32 9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18
0.18
s .
0.18 0.18 0.66 0.66
0.66 0.66 0.66
Clearance;Time (s) 40
4i0
4,0 4 0 4�0 4 0
�r 4 0 4 0 '`4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
3.0
,-.,:..
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
:.-
3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp„Cap (vph): 223
: 315
192 335 705 ]226 ,1042
Ws Ratio Prot
c0 11
_ . -
0.09 0 16
c0 37
v!S Ratio Perm 0 11
0 01 7 013 0 Ol 0 t3
v/6Ratio 0.58
0.62
0.06 0.47 0.19 0.25
0.02 0.57 0.19
Uniform Delay, d1- 18.7
...
1'ti.9
.
�, 16 9 r 18 3 r 3 4 �3 5 ,
r r
,. „ 3 0 4.7. ' 3 3
,,
Progression
g Factor 1.00
1.00
1.00 100 100 1.00
100 100 100
Incremental'Delay.yd2 3 8
36
r d
0 1 " 1 1 1 1 0 5
0 0 1 9Ox4
5
Delay (s) 22.6
22.5
17 0 19 34 5 4.0
3.0 6.6 3.8
Level of Service C
C,
�; B B A A,
A ':, A ; A
Approach Delay (s)
22.5
19.2 4.1
5.9
ro
Approach'LOS„ �:..,.,.„� ..,....
.. C
f_�. `B-_„-.�._ . A.
HCM Average Control Delay
?: :.9:8
HCM Level of Service
A
;
„_-
,-.•
..
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.58
Actuated C cle Len th s
Y 9 O
h 50.0 `
qd ,Sum of lost times
O
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
0
69 8 /o
ICU Level of Service
B
c :.Critical Lane Group
v. ....- -... ..+nk . p
'.- ... �'.....� , ..
2020 Total AM 3/23/2001
Isaassfort-st51
Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized InterseCL.,jn Capacity
Analysis
15: C R 52 & C R 9
3/27/2001
'
Movement=: A. aEBL, ,, EBTEBRm t, La r>, .1 WBR." NBL, I NBT�
„NBR a ,SBLBTSBF
'
Lane Configurations►
�►
44
S..
Sigri Control'," --Stop
Stop .:
Stop
Sto .:
... -.
Volume (veh/h) 25 40
70
....
35 110
10 130
1.30
10 10 70 10
F 0.942
0.96
�
0 92, 9Z -:
0 92r 0@4P
0
2 0 0:92 . ,0.92
0'9� a92
Hourly to (veh/h �0:27
Y )
,;:0
38 120
�2
r,
11 76 11
Direction;.Lane # :, EB;x1E 3WB<,1 . NB.1„. SB 1= ` ERE
Volume Total (vph) 147 168
293
98
Volume Left"(vph):. ' 27 38
41
1` :
11
,,.
y
, ..., •.
Volume Right (vph) 76 11
11
11
'
Had's 0.2 0.0
E ...
01•
0 0
Departure Headway s 4.8 5.3
p YO
4 9
50
Degree Utilization, x . '0 20 ,0.25
0.40
'
Capacity (veh/h) 681 537
700
674
Control Dela s 9.0 10.0':
11.2 "-
8 8
Approach Delay)(s) 9.0 10.0
11.2
8.8
Approach LOS..- . . A A
B.
Intefsectionx u"mmary vti
�: _ . X
, ,Mtn
Delay
10 1
`
'
HCM Level of Service
B
s
IIntersection Cap''chy Utilization ,
45.0%
ICU Level
of Service-
A
1
2020 Background PM 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
I
1
11
1
Ll
j
HCM Signalized Intersectioi , Capacity Analysis
9• Country Club & North Lemay 3/27/2001
--* t t `► 1
Lane Configurations
1►
Ideal Flow (vphpl),.'"'
' 1900
'1900
190a
1900•
1900 `,1.9oo
1900,
'1900
1900 19001900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane.Util. Factor
1:00
1:OOw
'1.00
1 00 . •'` , :
?100:
1.00
`, ?;1n 00•
1°:00
Frt
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.93
1.00
0.99
Flt.Protected ..
:.„ 0.95
r1 00.
0.95
1 00 .:''
0.95
.00
0 95
1.00..
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1781
1770
1846
1770
1735
1770
1852
Flt„Permitted
0.64
1 00'
� : 0.64
. 1 00 `„ • ;0 64
:. 1:00
'3u 0 45
T'W
Satd. Flow (perm)
1200
1781
1195
1846
1198
1735
842
1852
Volume (vph)
10.120
,
, . 50
„170 �_.
155 f .10, ;, 230 .
;" ,230
195 , `� `,30
�;. 160"
.':1' 6
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92.11 0 92
0.92
0.92
Adj.;Flow (vph)
11
130
54
185 .`
y 168 11
250' .:
250
212 33
'.174
7
Lane Group Flow (vph)
11
184
0
185
179 0
250
462
0 33
181
0
Turn Type
Perm
g Perm
Perm„Perm
.
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases. '.
4
;.
;.. 8
- 2:
!6
Actuated Green, G (s)
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
Effective 'Green; g,(s)`
9:5
9.5 :,;,
9.5
9 5
22r5.
:22 5
22 S
22.5"
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24.
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
Clearance Time(s);
4:0
W.
4.0,
` 4 0
4:0"
'4 0
4 04.0;
,
Vehicle Extensions
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap:(vph);
- 285
-423'
:- 284
,`. 438 ,.;
=�674 :
:976
474
1042.',
v/s Ratio Prot
0.10
0.10
c0.27
0 10
v/s Ratio Perm s
0.01
:�'
�
.cO.15
�,
.0.21'
, 0 04
v/c Ratio
0.04
0.43
0.65
0.41
0.37
0.47
0.07
0.17
Uniform Delay, dl
11.7
13.0-
-13.8
. 12 9;=
4.8,
, `5 2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delayd2
0.1
� 0 7
u.. 5.2
0 6
1.6 „
- -1.6
, 03
•_ 0:4'
Delay (s)
11.8
13.7
19.1
13 6
6.4
6.9
4.3
4.6
Level of Service -r
B
; �B.
,' -
B
B
: A:
A
A;
Approach Delay (s)
13.6
16 4
6.7
4.6
Approach LOS
8 ..^
B :, '
` _
" A
",.
A
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
c Critical Lane Group
2020 Background PM 3/23/2001
9.7
0.53
40.0
63.2%
HCM Level. of Service..
Sum of, lost time.(s)
ICU Level of Service
8.0
B
Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
' Isaassfort-st51
71
1
11
11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: CR 52 & CR 11 3/27/2001
--V 4-- 4\ t `► 1
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (uphpl) 1900
1900
` 1900
1900Ek 1900 s {IWO 1900
1900 1900
' 190 1,9,00
Total Lost time (s) 4 0
4.0
,1900';
4.0
4.0 4.0 4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util Fsctor 1� 00
1=00
1 00
Y a �; r
1000 ; �_� 1 00 1 00A 1n OQ
„ 1 00
111
Frt 1.00
0.9'2
1 00
0 86 1.00 0.98
1.00
0.99
0 90
0
5r r
s
,
Said. Flow (prot)k' 1770
1723
y'
1604 1770 1820
," 770
18411
042,100;,,�`�
Satd. Flow (perm)
1331 1723
1384 1604 1087 1820
783 1841
10=
10 .;
10 10125 10 440
80 ° 80 q 245
20
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92
Adf °;,Flow (vph)....... '.........
11....m '11
..''
1 `�.'. ' 11 °y g `'?136 11 478
} $7 ._:.` 87....
Lane GrouD Flow NO)
11 22
..e ..11
0
; . _
11 147 0 11 565
0 87 288
0
I 4
Protected Phases
8
2
itt�P
Permedhae 4
ate .1 ,ss
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6 31.4
31.4
31 4
31.4
Effective Green; s
((s)
5.
5'6-
5 6
5 6 31 4
3t' 4
31 4
31 4
g
Actuated g/C Ratio
2
0.16
0.12
0 12
0 12 0 70
6 70
0 70
0 70
Clearance Time (s), ,;
4:0
4`.0'
m
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0 3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp, Ca(uph) ;166'
„ 21"4
172 •, 200 „ „ „ 758
1270
, ,,.. 546
1285
v/s Ratio Prot
0.01
c0 09
c0 31
0.16
v/s.Ratio Rerm
0.0]
0 01
0 01
011
v/c Ratio "
0.07
0.10
0.06
0.74 0.01
0.44
0.16
0.22
�.
Uniform Delay, d1, , ,
. .1.7:4
17.5-
17 4
'..19 0 ,:�2 1 :°3 0
.
;", ,°. f2 3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
131 y i
0:4
Delay (s)
17.6
17.7
17.5
32.1 2 1
4.1
2.9
2.8
Level of Service
` B
.r
Approach Delay (s)
1„ .
17.6
31.1
4 1
2.9
Approach'LOS ... `,
_`
B
C.,,.'......, e
A
`..t. M ....
A
Gntrol Delay „J AHCWAverage,
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) ,Sum of lost time (s); 8;0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A
c 'Critical Lane Group
2020 Background PM 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
' Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Signalized Intersectio, . Capacity Analysis
' 3: Country Club & CR 11 3/27/2001
Movement'°- A Pam. ,, EBL° .=EBT,, EBRdW
WBL TWBT,WBR:."NBL.NBTNBRv SBL_, SBT, PSBR
'
Lane Configurations
I
I
�
�.
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900.
1900
1900.".1900
1900-"'1900
1900 1900
1900, .1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0"
Lane UtiI.,Factor
1:00'.
1.00
1.00'�
1.00`,"
1.00,;
,1.00,
1:00
«1 00:• ,
Frt
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.96
Fit Protected
Satd Flow (prot)
0.95
1770
1.00
1805
0.95
1770
1 00
1838
0 95 .
1770
1 M
1811
0 95
1770
1783
Fit Permitted
0:68
1.00
0.55
1 : -
0.57
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1264
1805
1026
1838
1071
1811
1171
1783
Volume (vph) ;_:= ' ,
14&,
175
45
10
102 :10.
155 -
`155
:;" ~; 35 20
200 a 80
"
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 6.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.9.21,
0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
166
190
.,49
11; -
111 = 11
168 ,
' 168
38
217 ; 87
Lane Group Flow (vph)
158
239
0
11
122 0
168
206
0 22
304(" 0
Turn T e
YP
Perm
Perm: ,
Perm
Perm
y u..
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted �'
Green,
Green, G (s)
;4
8.5
8.5
�"
8"
8.5
8.5
2
23.5
23.5
,6
23.5
23.5
EActuated ffective G reen,"g.(s)
8,5,
8 5';
= 8.5
8 5 t
23.5
°.23 5
23.5 23 5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0 59
0.59
0 59
0 59
'
Clearance Time (s) ,;.: "
4.0 '
4.0
:: _.
4.6,
4 0 ....
.4.0,
"4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) "
3.0
3.0
_
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
269
384
218° .;
391
629
1064"
:" 688
0048
v/s Ratio Prot
c0 13
0.07
0.11
c0 17
v/s Ratio Perm
0.12
0.01 "„
' ., ,:
0.16 ..
0.02
v/c Ratio
0.59
0.62
0.05
0.31
0.27
0.19
0.03
0.29
Uniform Delay, d1_
14:2.
14.3.
12:5. -
13 3 ":"
`4 0
3.8
Progression Factor
1.03
1.04
1.00
1 00
1.00
1.00
1 00
1.00
Incremental Delay; 02
3.
0
0.1,,
0 5 ..
1.0 .
' 0 4
Delay (s)
Level Service
17.7
B:
17.8
B
12.6
B:
13.7
B
5.1
A
4.2
': " A
3.6 4.8
A A"
of
Approach Delay (s)
17.8
13.7
4.6
4.7
Approach LOS
B
B -
A
A.
IntersechonSummary,
HCM Average Control Delay
9.9
_�'HCM Level of -Service
A
'
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
0.38
40.0
Sum of lost time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
55.7%
ICU Level of Service
A
c Critical Lane Group
[1
' 2020 Background PM 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
I
1
HCM Unsignalized Intersea.in Capacity Analysis
15: CR 52 & CR 9 3/27/2001
Movement. # .:* EBL . �,EBTw .EBR"� "WBL� �WBT, WBR,_,� NBL-g
. NBT
NBR
; 7SBL;,. SBT�, tSBR
Lane Configurations
4►
Sign Control .
Stop
Stop.
Stop
...
Stop
Volume (veh/h)
10
115
115
10
10
10 40
20
15
10 160
10
Peak Hour Factor ;
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
. 0.92 0.92:-'
0.92
,0,92.
0.92: '40.92'
0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
11
125
125
11
11
11 43
22
16
11 174
11
Direction, Lane#, f 1
EBW1 WIB,1"°
<NB 1
SB 1
.., , x.,
5' ."1 •'
Volume Total (vph)
261
33
82
196
Left (vph) a:
11.
11
.43,
11;
'
Volume M
Volume hvt Right,
9
125
11
1 fi
11
_(P)
Hadj (s)-02
-0.1
0:0 -
0.0 ;
�� ..
;.
• .
Departure Headway (s)
4.3
4.3
4.8
4.7
Degree Utilization, x z
0.31
0'04
0.11
0.25
Capacity (veh/h)
786
573
703
733
Control Delay (s) , °,', r
9.3
'7:5
8.4
9.2.
.
Approach Delay-(s.),
9.3
7.5
8.4
9.2
Approach L0$A
A
A
A
..':
' Delay 9.0
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.0%
1
ICU Level of Service `'; iA
2020 Background AM 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Signalized Intersectio,. Capacity Analysis
9: Country Club & North Lemay 3/27/2001
__A __p, --V 4,- 4.._ 4% T 1 V
)Vlovement, ; ; 5s11 NB�T Nt3;HXMbrs,_ yes i soh
Lane Configurations
�►
Ideal Flow (vphpl) ,,1900.
.1900?
1900 1900 1900 '1900 1900
1900 1900 '' 1900 1900�1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
Factor1.000.93
4.0
4.0 4.0 y 4.0
00 1100
4.0 4.0 4.0
1'00 °� " 1 00 1 00
bane Util
< _.,.
1.00 0.98 1.00
0.95 1.00 0.99
Fit Protected- 0 95 t 00'?
0 95 1` 00 0 95
' 1? 00 0 95 =1 00
'
Satd Flow (prot) 1770
1733
1770 1833 1770
H
1779 1770 1846
FIt,PermittedF' 0.69
00'
Satd. Flow (perm) 1286
1733
._
895 1833 1159
1779 1218 1846
195�
170 �, = E285u,:� °°85 10` ` '65
, 1'0545 30`"160 10
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
"7
FlowE(vph)
12.N
185, .
174
.
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27
397
x
0 310 103 0 71
163 0 33 185 0
Tqm Type Perm
:Perm ` Perm
6
Protected Phases
4
8
2
Permitted Phases
0
31 0
31 0 31.0 16.0
16.0 16 0 16 0
Actuated Green, G (s) 31
s 310
Effective Green, g_O
31,0'
31 0 31 0 i6 0
16 0 16 0 16 0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56
,
0.56
0.56 0.56 0.29
0.29 0.29 0.29
'
Clearance -Time,(s)'" ;. ' z , 4:0
4.0a
. , „4.0 4.0 ._, , x' ::"4 0
. ,_. 4' 0 . w z .•4 0, . , �4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 725
977
504 1033 337
518 354 537
...
v/s`Ratio-Prot
0 23';
0 06= "
R"" P
0 09 c0 10
'
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
c0 35 0.06
0.21
r
0.03
`31 0 34
Ratio 0 04
0.41
0 62 0 10 ,
0 0 09
Uniform Delay, d1 5.3
6.8
yµ
8.0 5.5 14.7
15.2 14 2 15 4
Progression-Factor,1s00
1 00 1 00 1'00'
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
1.3
5.5 0.2 1.4
1.6 0.5 1.8
Delay (s)..... 5:4
13 5 5 7 �16 2
16
_ .`
Level of Service A
... ,`8.0:
A
B A B
B B B
Approach Delay (s) :
'?•9
n .._ :: .... ..:' 11 6 ` �; . . ;,16 6 n.1.6.8
Approach LOS
A
B
B B
Intersection:: urnmaiiTi
HCM Average Control Delay 12.2 HCM Level of Service
B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle_ Length (s)
55.0 Sum of lost time (s)
8.0
intersection Capaciry,, Utilization
.
, 66 7% . ICU Level;of Service;
B
c Critical Lane Group
1 2020 Background AM 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
' Isaassfort-st51
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I - I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersectioi. rapacity Analysis
7: CR 52&CR 11 3/27/2001
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow'Y('phol)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Fit Permitted,`.'�"�'
Satcl. Flow (perm)
volume (VO),
Peak -hour factor, PkF
Adj. Flow .(vph),
Lane Group Flow (vph)
TO ' m Type,
Protected Phases
Permitted 'Ph as6s
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g 7(6)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance S
Vehicle Extension (s)
1900
4.0
1;00
1.00
0.95
1770
11 0
0
1863
10
0.92
�•J 1.
11
Perm
2.8
2.8
0.07
4.0
3.0
T+
1000
4.0
11.00
0.92
11%00_
1723
11,.00
1723
0.92
1 ,
22
4
2.8
2:.'8
0.07
40
3.0
I
1900`' .1900
4.0
"1 11.00
1.00
,0.95
1770
1".00
1863
jo%'.." 10
0.92 0.92
0 11
i 9w
:1900.
.1900�
4900
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.00
1.00,
I'm
0.88
1.00
6.94
1.00
0.95
-1'00
1635
1770
1759
1%00
0.40,�
�1.00
1635
743
1759
i 01
•i-45-,',
10
135
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
60
0
11
234
Perm
P erm J'
I
8
2
-8
2.8
2.8
29.2
29.2
2.8
2o&-
2921
:,29.2
0.07
0.07
0.73
0.73
4.0
4 0
4 0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap .(vph)", 130
121
130 114" -542,', J284
v/s Ratio Prot
0.01
c0.04
0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
0.01 0.0111
v/c Ratio 0.08
0.18
0.08 0.53 0.02
0.18
Uniform Delay, dl 17.4
117.5
17.4 „18 0 5.!
Progression Factor 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
�0.8
1 - .00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3
0;7
43-�:
Delay (s) 17.7
1-8112
17.7 22.3 1.5
2.0
Level of Service. B
B
B C 'A
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.1
21.6
-2.0
Approach LOOS
13
A
rh�tersedfion,'87urn Summary
HCM Average Control'Delay
4:5,
HCM Level of Service,
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
40.6.'
Sum9f. lost _tirnw(s)
I
'ICU
Intersection Capacity Utilization
50.2%
Level of S ervice
c, Critical Lan6,Gro,dp
2020 Background AM 3/23/2001
1900 iqdo
11900�. 1900
�7 1_
4.0
4.0
'11.60
1
1.0,0
1.00
1.00
1770
1858
00
11858
1 142
80
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
87
A20'1
0
130 631
0
Perm
6
29.2
.29.2
0.73
0.73
3.0
3.0
834, 1356.3
cO.34
0.16
0.47
i.6.
Ry
1.00
1.00
2.0
3.4
nA
3.1
A
8.0
A
Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
Iisaassfort-st51
1
HCM Signalized Intersection rapacity Analysis
3: Country Club & CR 11
3/27/2001
'
Movement,_ s^ GEBL EBT EBR;
WBL WBT MBRcFr"NBL�":;NBTr.,
NBR SB, SBT SB;,
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow:(vphpl);:r `
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util: Factor ';
1900..1900
4.0
1 00
4.0
1.00
1900
11900
4.0
1,.00
1900,. A 900
4.0
' 1,00
1900.
4.0
1:00
1900
4.0
1:00
1..
1900 19001-;1900
4.0
, '1:00.
t
4.0
1.00.
... .
1900
4.0
, =
Frt
1.00
0.93
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.85
'
ected
t romitted'
Satd. F
Flt Per -low (prot)
095
1770
0:95
1.60
1731
' 1.00
0:95
1770
�b.64
_ 1 00 :_
1843
1.00 s
,0.95
1770
0.49
1.00
1833
1.00
0'95
1770
0 66
1.00
1863
T:00
' T00
1583
: 1 00
erm)'
17800
1795
1120'
43
1835
16
970...
11125
'
Vola el ( ph)ow
Peak -hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph) ,.
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0.92
8Z
87
0.92
103
195
85
0.92
92
0
0.92
' 22
22
, Y 10
0.92 0.92
:. 147 11
_
158 0
0.92
76
76
0.92
136
152
0 92 0.92
0 11
� 320
348
348
100
92
109
109
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Split
4
-,.
.<.
4
';
"Perm.
8''
; _... _...
8
Perm
2
2
Perm
�:e
.,
6
. Perm
��6
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
9.6
9,6
9.6
96
8.7
8 7 ,.:
8.7
8 !' "'.
29.7
29:7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.7
, 29 7
29.7
, 29:7
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Times :
0.16
4.0
0.16
4:0 `
0 14
4 0
0 14
4 0
0.50
4.0
0.50
4 0
0 50
4:0
�3.0
0.50
4.0;
0.50
40
,
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0�
3.0
3.0�
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp,Cap (vph) :
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm:-
283
0.05
277
c0.11
172
0.02 '
:: 267
c0 09
,;
;453
0.08-
907
0.08
609
922
c0 19
<784
=0.07
v/c Ratio
d
0.31
3
0.70
.23.9'
0.13
223W
0.59
`240
0.17
0.17
- 8382
0.02
0.38
0.14
P oiforemsDoeJ
g Factor
incremental tal Delay, d2
00
0 �6
1.00
7 9:
1.00
0 3 .-
..,
1.00
3 5
1.00
.00
0.8
1.00
0 4
1.00 1.00
0 1 1 2
1.00
w 0 4
'
Delays
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS ;:
22.9
G
317
29.0
C
227 275
26 9
C
9.1
A
87
A
8.9
A
78
'A
106
_ •_ B
10.1
B
86
, , _. A
HCM Average Control Delay
17.1
_•'HCM Level.of.Service
1B
'
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
,..
0.48
60.0
Sum oflosttime (s)
12.0 -
-
Intersection Capacity Utilization
..
50.3%
ICU Level of Service
A
'
c Critical Lane Group
..
2020 Background AM 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersectioi. %,'a'pacity Analysis
22: Vine & North Lemay 5/11/2001
..JA , --V r '+- A, � 4/
Lane Configurations
. I
Ideal Flow (Vphp!),
19001000
1906, 1400 - ,i qp&
1900 - 1900. 1900
-1006
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
11 00.
1 �On',
0 0
Frt
0 .95
0.96
64
0.99
0.994
FIY Pmtect,ied'f
.0,:
Satd. Flow (prot)
1755
1754
1841
1840
It,P Permitted
F e
9
�5_
Satd. Flow (Perm)
1394
1050
1698
1560
vylulliv �Vv
Peak -hour factor, PHF
6.92 6.92
0.92 0.92 0.92. 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.-92- 0.92
0.92
A qj. ; Flo
7,
1�j 9
�z� AA
Lan I e G I roup Flow (vph)
0 376
0 0 343 0 0
1357
0 0 954
0
TUt'n Type Perm �z:
;PermP erm
0_ na Y
2
6_
Protected Phases
4
8
P'66�nittec!'Pfia:s6si
A c , tu .1 ated 11 G I r , e .. en G s
1. 27 .0
27. 0
65.0
65.0
ffective
'0
660
MO�,;
.
Actuated g/C I Ratio
0 27
0.2 7
0.65
0.65
4.0 -
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
376
284
1104
1014
vii-Ratio Pr6t',,"
v/s Ratio Perm
0.27
c0.33
C0.80
0.61
vjdRatio
�1�.'00
' 23
094
Uniform Delay, dl
36.5
36.5
17.5
15.8
progression, Fa or,t
I I I _'� 00_00
, ,
Incremental Delay, d2
46.4
121.18
111.2
17.2
ela
DY(s)
82.
26 7'�-,
Level Service
F
F
F
C
of
ay
Approach Delay
�12877:
. .....
Approach LOS
F
F
F
C
t%--
HCM Average Control Delay
96.2
HCM Level of Service,
HCM Volume to 'Ca'Papiy't"'
1.22
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0
Sum of lost time (s)
8.0
I ntersectio6 C66a6iti,Ui lizafn
7
ICU Level of'Service":
c Critical Lane Group
2005 Total PM Volumes 5/11/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page
Iisaassfort-st51
I�
11
�I
HCM Unsignalized Intersec,..in Capacity Analysis
20: Mountain Vista & Timberline 3/26/2001
� � � ~ 4\ /01
Lane Configurations
Sign Control;
rFree
Free
Stop,
_
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)-: -
202
•.197
57
327
„360'
142
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow,rate (yeh/h)
^; 220
:'214 .
62
355
39.1 •;,
` 154
Pedestrians
Larie Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
scent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type;:"
None ,
Median storage veh)
vC; conflicting3olume
434
'
806':
327
_
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage'2,c6rifvol
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stag6,,-(s) . .. ..
_ . _. ..... .
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %=
_
.7 94
0
- 78
cM capacity (veh/h)
1126
332
715
Direction;aLan®%# .a..,..r-
Volume Total
434
417
546
Volume Left': e:�
0
62
391
Volume Right
214
0
154
cSH ":,
1700
-1126'
391
= -
Volume to Capacity
0.26
0.06
1.39
Queue Lengthjft)
- 0.
- 4-
673
;.
Control Delay (s)
0.0
1.7
219.9
Lane LOS =; .,:
A
F
:
;>
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
1.7
219.9
Approach LOS '
_
F
�r
E
Average Delay.
' Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.9% ICU Level of Service
LI
D
2005 Total PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 5
' Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized lntersecL,,.n Capacity Analysis
' 15: C R 52 & C R 9 3/26/2001
-• 4 T /0' ti 1
Lane Configurations
Sign Control:
Stop ...._
_
Stop ....�.� .._:...`._i..€ Free
'
Grade
Volume (veh/h) i
Peak Hour Factor
0%
0 _2: 21':
0.92 0.92 0.92
0% 0% 0%
12 6 6 34 „69 1 ` 'u3 `43 :Q
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
'
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
Pedestrians
0 2 23
3 0
13 7 7 37 75 1 47
'
Lane' W idth ,(ft) , .. r.. , _
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage s p s
....:.. ...... . ... w .... .: ... t.......+... .. :. ......... .. ... te. ... ... i ...f_ Y.,....... T i ._`Jv..,....Ai..$ ...«........
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type'.
�. . .
None
+ .... .. ........._ . ....
... .....Nx ,...... .. .. ..,.. .. ...
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume
212 _ , 203 4777,
_
_. «
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
tI�z
C�2,ge 2;conf vo
C single (s)
7.1 6.5 6.2
7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
2stage (s)
,
{
'
tF(s)
p0 queue free % .. ....t
cM capacity (veh/h),
3.5 4.0 33
100 100 ' _ 98
. ..
720 675� 1023
35 40 33 22 22
98 „ 99
697 676R4986 1561 1523
irect�on;, ane=# E WAI BQ+1� NB 1 S51
Volume Total
25 26k y 31,13
50r.
Volume Left
0 13 37
3
lume�Righ
cSH
979 746 1561
1523
VomeoCapaci!y
0:03, 0.03 0.02
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay (s) +;; �
2 3 2 2
8:8, =''10.0 .5"
0
Lane LOS
A B A
A
Approach Delay (s) �;:
Approach LOS
A B
' Average Delay 3.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.4% : ICU-14i6f6f,$ernce A
2005 Total PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 4
' Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Unsignalized Intersec.,,jn Capacity Analysis
' 9: Country Club & North Lemay 3/26/2001
MbVement� .E . �4�d'"
EBLy�,
EBT�a oEBR;
WBL��v. BT"
-m_BR
NBL�m�NBT,; rNBR
Si31,�,
SI3T� .>SB�
Lane Configurations
43.
4
T
__
4#
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
:Stop
Volume (veh/h)
10
415
48
227
267
24
68 163
390
9
83 6
'
Peak HourFactor: ;
0.92
;. 0.92:.
0.92
0.92
0 92
0;92
' 0.92 0.92
0:92
0 92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
11
451
52
247
290
26
74 177
424
10
90 7
Direction, Lanet#^ .EB'1
,WB'-1.
NB 1 SB;t
-
k• , :
" '
'
Volume Total (vph)
514
563
675
107
Volume Left (vph)::_
11
- 247;
....74
..10
Volume Right (vph)
,.
52
26
424
7
0.0
: 0.1
„0.3
.. 0.0
Departure Headway (s)
7.4
9.2
7.1
9.1
Degree utilization,,x
1.06
1.44
.1..34
0 27
'
Capacity (veh/h)
481
4021,111.1515
389
Control Delay (s) .
. 85.9
2.37.4
187.2
15.5
Approach Delay (s)
85.9
237.4
187.2
15.5
Approach LOS
F
F..
_. F
C
-_....-,
Delay : n 1;64.5
' HCM Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.1 % ICU Level of Service , . -G -
2005 Total PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
' Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Intersec,.
,n Capacity
Analysis
7: CR 52 & CR 11
3/26/2001
Movemen,; _EBLEBT'EBFik:WBL„,WBTWBR«
„tNBL NB,;rNBR$BL SBT�,,SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control V
Stop
Stop
FreeGrde
000
Oo0'
'
Volume (veh/h)
1
33 -.:151
1,1- ' °59
743
232 7!
; 501 ;'.- S
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
5 . 1
0
36
164 0 .
12 64
808'
252 8°
545 5
'
Pedestrians
..
Lane Width._ ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median a :..,
tYP.,
"
None
::...,:
None =_
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume
1636
1.751
54T..
1660 t 627 •-
• 934 `550
r" ' `
1060'
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2`conf volt'
.,
-
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1 6.5
6.2 4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage:(s) . :• =
,.
-
tF s)
(
3.5
4.0
3.3.
3. 5 4.0
3.3 2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
99
-100
.' 93'-
0 .' 100
" 96' 94
991
cM capacity (veh/h)
73
79
537
68 94
322 102'0
657
; x
.7
Volume Total , ' ',
37
176
1124'
558
Volume Left
1
164
64
8
Volume Right .:-
36
12
252
5 .
'
cSH
452
72
1020
657
Volume to Capacity : ;
0.08
244
0.06 .
0.01
-
Queue Length (ft)
7
422
5
1
'
Control Delay (s) ..
13.7
778.9
1",9.
0.3
Lane LOS
B
F
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
13.7
778.9
1.91
0.3
Approach LOS
B
F
x'` e S #S,1'ritersectionSummary, N',•,�._�,.. .pAj.� c n_s.
Average Delay
'Utilization
73.9
'
Intersectioh,,Ca aci
117.3/�
ICU Level
of Service
G
._ .; ..
1
�I
2005 Total PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
' Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized lnterseu,-on Capacity Analysis
3: Country Club & CR 11 3/26/2001
4N 4/
IM 09W Wd -Dar- s I �1- E E B Tq, 07 E B R �
M-1
S r k RM ,"�','S B
WBU� WSW2NBEW, MBRW.-S15C . U7 3
Lane Configurations
Sign
T+
Stop
*T# 4* 4*
t I'reen
Grade 0%
Volume (v6 h-/ hj)'; 'z -7: ....... 63U0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92
0.92
0% 0% 0%
2 ... 489 -41' �T'�387
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
IOW, -,,'rate'
Hourlyj (Veh.,
8 J 01
91
_0 - 11- 1 - - ; I - 21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)Mwa.
0r;
M77 ,
1W
Walking Speed(lft/s)
Percentr '"" Blockage- -
MPGK77
u.
Right turn flare (veh)
Median '. t
We
None,;
Median storage veh)
Vol � -- -,
VC, conflicting volume
136U�:'71374��
T :T!�!,
-'.4 -5-6-,2-"-!: iT5
Vol, stage 1 conf vo(...
Z vC2, stage
tC, single (s) 7.1`6.5
I:C2g O
T (s) 3.5 4.0
%
pp queuef ree'-3%0'� 4-":1' 0: 100,
cM capacity (v eh h) 101 123
1-i bL
6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 . .. ....
... . ....
3.3 3.5 4.0 3 3 2.2 2.2
'�8 2:" 68
-
556 78 94 532 874 997
4,
8�1W2 155-1= 2MOW
Volume Total
Volume Left
.685 99
685 0
38
25
133 7
Volume Right
cSH
0 09
101 556
j
89
J,45:` I
874 997
Volume to Capacity Rac
1
6.77 *0. 8
0-43,
TI: 2
,y
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay
Lane LOS
Err 16
'Err
F B
44
3." 0
F
13 '0
A A
Approach Delayv(s)'.,s ;8738A��,�,,,,�
Approach LOS F
F
jFt�eCsecti0fffSU-rfi-M&,Y-
-A- - z
Average Delay
Intersection 04paci Ii i 0
"ty.Uti izat n.,.
3022.8
35'f%��P:��
C S- 'H�
U_L6 I!of.
I
I
I
2005 Total PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page I
Isaassfort-st51
1J
1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: Vine & North Lemay 5/11/2001
fvlovemenf�� � m��.t` EBLLEBTa=� EBR�§�WB�,�. WBT�UUBR�,N; BL,s��a�NB�',�NBR��#SBL3�.$BT��SBF
Lane Configurations
41,
4*
.
Ideal Flow (vphpl) •1900. 1900
1900,
1900 1900 1900. 1900
, 1900
1900 1900 t 1900 ; 1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Larie Util: Factor
1.005.00
1:00
Frt
0.94
0.98
0.99
0.99
F.It'Protected, I.
t' ., .0.99
r', 0 98 I
1 00 t 1 00
Satd Flow 11 (prof)
1738
1782
1837
1844
Flt,Permitted; v
0.92
058
0'85
, ._....
Satd. Flow (perm)
1602
1067
1566
1781
, '
Volume (vph) r
102
t10:;
149 115 48 50
50 a36 1028 70
ARt
Peak -hour factor, PH 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
,.'`s551
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj; Flowt v h) ;
38 111:
120
162 125 52 54
599 "54 39 , 1117 76 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)--
_. ...
0 269
0
3 0_
0 339 0 0
_
707
_ � .,k
0 0 1232 0
TurriPermPerm
Perm
. _ ....:" Perm ..' .,..
._.,.,.,
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
Permitted Phases
h
8 2
°
Actuated Green, G (s)
_.
29.0
a.;
29.0
63.0
63.0
s E
ffective Greenr,g: (, )a.
29.0
„ 29 0
63 0
63 0
_.
Actuated q/C Ratio
0.29
0.29
0.63
0.63
:< 4.0
465
309
987
1122
s
0.17
c0.32
0.45
c0.69
.`0.58
30.3
35.5
12.5
18.5
5.2
79.8
4.4
57.8
35.5
115 3
16 9
A 76.3
,.
D
F
B
_.. .._...
E
D
. F
B
E
lnte
HCM Average Control Delay
60.7
HCM Level of Service
E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio :, _'
1.10 -
PU
Actuated Cycle Length s
Intersectioh:Capacity` Utilization
100.0
150 7% :
Sum of lost times 8.0
ICU Level of;Service N H
c Critical Lane Group
1
1
' 2005 Total AM Volumes 5/11/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
I
I
I
11
HCM Unsignalized Intersecuin Capacity Analysis
20: Mountain Vista & Timberline 3/26/2001
Lane Configurations
Sign Controls
Free. „
Grade
0%
Vol
315 '7:*324.:
Peak Hour Factor
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow r�tov6fi]/h
342 352
Pedestrians
Lane
0%
0%
105
16
1 -12,
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
114"
-1-2 26-
7
�7-2
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent B 16-61l'�i
T
Right turn flare (veh)
Median .. .. .....
t
Median storage veh)
vC,' conf I icf indv-61`6m*
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
N'n"
_0 9,
yC2, stag61,'d ... oh'd'vo"I:'�'�
tC, single (s)
A Jit, 3 IW
4.1 6.4 6.2
tF (s)
2.2 3.5 3.3
po.queue-"f cM capacity (veh/h)
901 280 557
Diffi—cti6ftKil Lrdnb74, -K EB�17WB
Volume Total 695 240 173
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
0
352
170&
0 51
57,
Volume to Capacity
0.41
0.13 0.53
Queue Length (ft)�
0
IT 7 3,
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS,
0.0
5.2 27.5
A, D
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
5.2 27.5
Approach
f6ter!§666fti�dnUmm
4"A A�VMQ MOWN, I =00 M= w Off, 011 a AMBENNOMM
Average Dela M J4:
Intersection Capacity Utilization
5.4
72.4% ICU
j'Level of Service C .. . . .. .. ......... ..... ..
I
I
I
2005 Total AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 5
Isaassfort-st51
'
HCM Unsignalized
Intersect,,jn Capacity Analysis
15: C R 52 & C R 9
3/26/2001
Movemen a EBL , EBT`M' EBR gWBL
V1IBT
:WBR eNBL .
NBT,,wVNBRtMSB1,rMKSBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
SignControl
Stop
Stop'=.
Free
Free.
Grade
0%
0%
061.
0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
.1
0
29
12
0
6
0
128
1
3
72
0
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
:1
0
32-
13
0
; ; 7
0'
`. 30
1
3
7&
0
Pedestrians
Lane Width'(ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type,..
None
.,.None
Median storage veh)
'
vC;'conflicting volume
122
116
70
147'
.. 116
:` 31
78
32It
vC1, stage 1 conf voI
vC2, stage 2 conf Vol
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage:(S).
_._...
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue
100
100
97 r`
98
'�'� 100
--;;99 .
100 ..
.100,-
cM capacity (veh/h)
846
772
982
793
773
1043
1520
1581
, 5m ^.^ss i3
Yit <'r '3.1.+,"�s SYr z• `? ,- 3 .f_'i. 'nx'SY3
.y
Volume Total
33
20
32
82
Volume Left
1
13
0
3
'
Volume Right
32
7
1
0
cSH
977
862
1520
1581
Volume to Capacity,.'
0.03
0:02
0.00
0.00
Queue Length (ft)
3
2
0
0
Control Delay (s) ;,;
8.8
9:3
'0.0
0.3
Lane LOS
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
8.8
9.3
0.0
0:3
Approach LOS
A
A
' Average Delay 3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization - 14:4% :ACU Level of Service A
L
1
2005 Total AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 4
' Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized InterseaIon Capacity Analysis
I
1
IL -I
9: Country Club & North Lemay
3/26/2001
-•
-**
t
t
�►
1
Mavemen., � 5
EBLI�EBTROEBR
WBL.y
WB d
1NBR a N6l ,$N. 1 a B;s
B�
SB ;:SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control...
°
Stop
;Stop
Stop
a .._.
Stop
Volume (veh/h)
7
167
86 332
345
5 37 70
125
18
153 7
Peak Hour_Factor . '
0:92
0.92,
0.92 '0.92.
.0.92,
"0.92. 0.92 0.92,
0.92
''0.92.
;0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
8
182
93 361
375
5 40 76
136
20
166 8
Volume Total (vph)
283
741
252
193
Volume Left (v' h) .
8
361;
40.
e ,
20
Volume Right (vph)
93
5
136
8
Had�'
js) (
0.2
.0 1,
0.3
0.0
e'
He
D Headway (s)
6.4
7.2
6.7
7.1
Degree Utilization, x„
0.50
1t48
0.47
0.38
Capacity (veh/h)
539
504
509
478
Control Dela . (s)
y
15.6.
247.7
15:4 .
'14:4
Approach Delay (s)
15.6
247.7
15.4
14.4
Approach LOS
G
;F
C
B ,
' Delay „ 132.5
HCM Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.9% ICU Level of Service
0
L!
1
2005 Total AM Volumes 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
' Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
' 7: CR 52 & CR 11 3/26/2001
bemen O II, . .. KIMU.
Lane Configurations
4T*
'
Sign Control ,:
9
Grade
Volume (veh`/h) �q 3
Stop,: ,''Stop ' _� _ Free°'� �' r Free
00/1 z 0 o � � o
0% 0% 0%
V' 52: 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 3
1`', 57 220 0 11', 24 296r 102 9 17 661 0
'
Pedestrians
Lane Width'',(ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
g e
_ •f .. ? 5 .. F..JC ...... L 0.Y I .A. F :2J v...1
1 �e
Right(veh)
g
.
Median type;;e. ..
None'-,
.. ..
z
. _ None .. ' �. ' H
.1.f .... t h
Median storage veh)
vG,•conflictiri volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1147 ,Y 1090
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
tC, single (s) 7 1
tC >9. („) 2`sta e s
6.5 6 2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tF (s) 3.5
p0;queue free -'98
cM capacity (veh/h) 181
4.0
..99,
192
3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
..... 88 0:,100 .. 98 97 ��' �99
R n
462 149 206 696 927 1161
' Direction, Mane B�1„W6�1° �r B 1 1
Volume Total 61
230,
422 ° 678
Volume Left 3
220
24 17
Volume Right ; 57
1:1
�<
102 , 0 M,LL. Vie`.
cSH 417
155
927 1161
Volume to Capacity." 015
Queue Length (ft) 13
Control Delay, (s) ;; _ 15.1
:1:49'
379
304.4,-
0 03 , . 0 01 "'+
2 1
.0.8 0 4
Lane LOS C
F
A A
PP y (,)
Approach Dela s �, 15.�1
Approach LOS C
304.4� 0 8 0 4 wx
w_..�... d
FNr
__.._
IntersectionSummary:'�,�_���.�.."� ���?��• 01, _ 1�57_ . 7�7_-_
' Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
51.5
75 1% "'!! ICU Level of Seance C __
.. .. , 9 .. ....'......
11
' 2005 Total AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
Isaassfort-st51
I
IL
1
1
11
HCM Unsignalized Intersea,.m Capacity Analysis
3: Country Club & CR 11 3/26/2001
Lane Configurations
T4
Sign Control
;'.;
1-Stop
Grade
0%
Volume (veh/h)
226
5.
- 134' 36
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rat9 (veh/h)
-.246
5
146:? 39
Pedestrians
Lane.Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
,
-None'
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume ,
1017
1011:i
695y- 1153.
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
Stop:=-
Free
0%
0%
14". 5
66 147
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
15 5
72 .€160
vC2, stage 2 conf.vol
tC, single s
g
7.1
6 5
62
7.1
65
62
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
p0.queue free %
0
97::.
' 67
63
89
99
'90
cM capacity (veh/h)
182
215.
442
106
144
878
696
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Free
0%
12 :0 364 550
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
13 0 396 598
246
A51.--
60
.245:
•'.993
246
0
39
72
0
b
' 146`.
5
13
598. °.
182
426
124
696
1700
1.35
0.35 -
0.48
'0J0
0.58 =
359
39
55
9
0
238.7
.18.0 -
58.4
4.0
Wo
F
C
F
A
154.6
r ,.,
58.4
4.0
0.0
' Average Delay 38.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization =100.9%
�I
1
2005 Total AM Volumes 3/23/2001
ICU Level of Service
F
Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: Vine & North Lemay
5/11/2001
t
`► 1 •�
g. EB EP EB. F; SBT $BR
oyement,. ERR, NBR-TSB[
_ , ,
,
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 s1900`u 1900 1900
51900 ",1'900 1900 1900 1900 1900
.
,t9001900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane UtiI Factor ' 1 00
1 00
1 00
.. ., .....v... .... . ,.... r .,w_.. x .. _. _. _.
µ0.96
....:L:........,uw..9i..:ltnu.«.�. t _
..0.99
......c.. .......LS.,-.n,.. ,.. ... .. , _
Frt 0.95
0.99
Flt Protected" 0 99' 0 98
1ti00 :
_........ i . .._.......u,_.... ., a_:....... .. ..c__s_ ........ f ..._...._._....,..._:._.._..,.a.«:..:;.._..?..._c�..r.>�,.iM».�..._..._.c._..
Satd. Flow (Prot) 1755
1754
1838
1840
rii.rermineu _ U iar;u:no
_ _
Satd. Flow (perm) 1394 1050 1681 1595
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
85 t159 z�g132m ,120mm; 116 ; UT F ,62'"'1'Q54` �96F' X62; u 8_23 64 Adf Flow (vph) ._..�___._
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 376 0 0 343 0 0 1212 0 0� 949 0
8 2 6
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 376 284 1093 1037
v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.33 c0.72 0.60
Level of Service F F E C
Approach`tDelay 28 9
Approach LOS F
F E C
HCM Average Control Delay 72.7
HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacltv,ratlo.
'
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity: Utilization 169 0% �_ ICU Level of Service
c Critical Lane Group
1
1
0
' 2005 Background PM Volumes 5/11/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
' 20: Mountain Vista & Timberline 3/26/2001
!oe
T�
EW
NBA B;
NR��
'
Lane Configurations .�
Sign Control
Free
Free °'Stool
:..
t
Grade
Volume (veh/h)
0%
= 138
112
0%
57 228
0%
227 :.':142
Peak Hour Factor
6.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
'
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
Pedestrians
1,50
122
.62 248.
. 247 ;154
Lane Width (ft)
'
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent.Blockage
„ .
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None Y
Median storage veh)
vC, conflic'ting volume
; - ;'
272,
583 21'1
'
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf`vol
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage(s)
_..
_...
tF (s)
p0 queue.free %
2.2
95
3.5 3.3
45 ,. 81
cM capacity (veh/h)
1292
452 829
Dir`ection;,."FL•a e`#gEB=1 WB,1 NB_1, .,.` d �" "7a
Volume Total
272
310
401
Volume Left
0
62.247
�.,.,
'
Volume Right
cSH
122
1700
0
1292
154
548
Volume to Capacity
0.16
0.05
0.73
Queue Length (ft)
0
4
? 153
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS..
0.0
1.9
A
27.4
p
,..-
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
1.9
27.4
Approach, LOS
D
'
Average Delay;11.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
64.9%° ICU Level of Service
B
2005 Background PM Volumes 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 5
' Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Interseciion Capacity Analysis
15: CR 52 & CR 9
3/26/2001
Movement
s�_
EBR
WBL
,.WB .:�..WBR��NBLw.,;�NBT.,.x.NBR.�,�SBL_�
N:' � ,:
,.: meµ.
�SBT _
-SB
Lane Configurations
4*
Sign Control':
Stop
Stop .
F.ree
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h); .,.
-0
2
0
12,
6'
6
1.
69 1:'°
3 -.43
..- 0
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 6.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
0
2
.0,
. 13
7
7
.: _.1
75 1
47
_,0
Pedestrians
..:.3 N
Lane Width:.(ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
_
-
Right turn flare (veh)
_,.....
Median type'
None
-
None.
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume
'1.41
132
`47:
132 `
131' :
76
A7
76:
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2.c6nf'v`61
°
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
..
..
x
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
m
2.2
p0 queue free %
,1,00
1,00
100
._.. 98
99
99
; �.100
-
'100'
cM capacity (veh/h)
816
757
1023
836
758
986
1561
1523
Volume Total „
: �2
26
77
50
Volume Left
0
13
1
3
Volume Right '°
0"
1
6.,
cSH
757
846
1561
1523
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0 03
0.00
0.00
Queue Length (ft)
0
2
0
0
Control Delay (s),
9.8.
9[4
0.1
0.5
Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
9.8
9 4
0.1
0.5
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary,. �s ,.:wy ,,._ ` _ ,
Average Delay
1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
14.1%
ICU Level of Service A
2005 Background PM Volumes 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 4
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Country Club & North Lemay
3/26/2001
'
---60meM
R` Bl
; .
Lane Configurations
Sign; Control =
Volume (veh/h)
#T*
Stop'
10 217
�, 4
Stop Stop a $fop.
48 142 139 24 68 163 257 9 83 6
'
Peak Hour Factor �;
0 92 0.92�
0 92:
1
0 92 ,0 92 0 92 0 92 0:92 0.92,' `°0 92 0:92 -. 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
11 236
52
154 151 26 74 177 279 10 90 7
3irecfion, .
.;B;�
�=
._�. .. M�
�.
Volume Total (vph)
299 332
530
107
Volume Left ('vph) f1 ,154
Volume Right (vph) 52 26
' 74 10 ti z"
279 7
.. . .
Hadj (s) ,.
. ....ri N- a-.
Departure Headway (s)
.. ..,
0 1 0 1 0 3 ..
_ .-.
6.5 7.3 5.9
.__ sy 7. e�.x. ___._. ..» 1 s_5. __.. i..,:•. «r s. _.:ca,. ,. s.a :.. ,, s (.
0 0
7.1
Degree Utilization, x
Capacity (veh/h)
0 54. 0 67 ., 0 87
514 447 590
10.21
460
Control Delay:
'
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
17.0 24.1
C C'
36.0
E
12.0
r
B_._... k--_v ..� . .........
Intersections _ummary"
e
Delay
HCM Level of Service
264
D
i
Intersection Capacity Utilization
81 5%
.; ICU Levef of Service' v
u
71
�I
' 2005 Background PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Unsignalized IntersecLIon Capacity Analysis
' 7: CR 52 & CR 11 3/26/2001
I
1
I
7
i
Lane Configurations
.�►
�,
Sign Control- ". _
stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
1 0
. •33 6 'W ` :11 59
Peak Hour Factor
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
1 0
.; 36 7, 0 12 .:- 64
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type �None .
Median storage veh)
vC,conflicting volume ':909 '901''; 310`
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf,-vol
None
:933 900 -443 313
Free
Free
0%
0%
405
6 : �;.7 - " 283
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92
440
7 8. 308
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free%
100
+ 100
' " ; 95
:97 ;
-2,100, :,;
`' 98
-!95
cM capacity (veh/h)
240
262
730
.224
262
614
1247
5
0.92
5
Volume Total
37
18,
511
321
Volume Left
1
7
64
8
Volume Right
: 36:12.
7 "
5.
cSH
688
380
1247
1114
Volume to Capacity
0.05
005
0.05
0.01
Queue Length (ft)
4
4
4
1
Control Delay (s)'
10.5
15.0
1.5
0.3 "
Lane LOS
B
B
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
10.5
15.0
1.5 .
" 0.3
Approach LOS
B
B
' Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of, -Service
' 2005 Background PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
' Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
' 3: Country Club & CR 11 3/26/2001
EB11MEBT EBR;, WBLw;�WBT; NBLi
NBT NBR� PSBR
,WBR�.
,=, ,SBL �4SBTr.
Lane Configurations
►j
T+
*T+
4+ 4+
Sign' Control
Stop
'Stop
Free Free
Grade
0%
0%
0% 0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
299
0
91
23
9 3 122
257 41 6 . `136 174
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly: flow rate (veh/h)
`; 325
0
99
25.
" 10 3 =133
279 45 7t 148 89
'
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft) ..
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
y '
None
None ..
Median storage veh)
'
vC, conflicting volume .:
" 830
845
242
921,
917 302 337
324
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
V
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
'
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7 1
6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.6 3.3 2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
0
100,
88
88
: • 96 :100 89
$ 99
cm capacity (veh/h)
255
266
796
201
241 738 1222
1236
NTecfi no ;{Lane°# °.: EB>1 EB 2WB 1N61
g,wLL
Volume Total
325
99 -
38
457
343
Volume Left
325
0
25
133
7
Volume Right
0
99:.
3
45
189
cSH
255
796
224
1222
1236
Volume to Capacity
1.28
0.12' _
0.17
0.11 •
-0.01
Queue Length (ft)
406
11
15
9
0
Control Delay (s)
190.2
A0.2:
24.3
3.2
0:2"
Lane LOS
F
B
C
A
A.
Approach Delay (s)
148.2
24.3
3.2
Approach LOS
F
C
Intersen ,S ctioummaiV h , v� ro � 77;'
. �u4.= ? �-0 77 � R ' TR77, i ffg4 r-"
Average Delay
51.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
'79.1
%
'ICU Level of Service .
C
I�
1
' 2005 Background PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
'
22: Vine & North Lemay
5/11/2001
Movements �.. _ . , EBL EBT EBR. WBL ;WBT ° sWBRZ,. NBL, . FNBT< 'IVBR,' „SBL .' ' SBTz;�SBFI
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (Vphpl)
1900 1900
1900. 1900 11900 1900
1900 1900 1900 1900 -900
'
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
.1900'
4 0
4.0 4.0
Lane"Util. Factor, .
` 1.00;'
1.0 ''
1 00 11i00'
Frt
0.94
0.98
0.99 0.99
Flt P,.rotected
0 99
0 98
1
Satcl. Flow ( rot
(p )
1738
1782
34
1834 1842
fit rmi tt
�. 0.92,
0 97.
.,..
Satd Flow (perm)
Urn
Volu(vpti)
1618 1136 1603 1784
35 102;, 110 ;149 115> 48 50 * :70
r 4'
„
.,4,99 _y „50 ;M36 .,911'.
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Ad} Flow (vph)
38 111. 120� 162 125 52 ' 54
542 54 " s 39 990 76
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0 269
0 0 339 0 0
650 0 0 1105 0
Turn Type ";i
Perm Perm Perm
w .,...,.,.
u....., „ Perris
s
Protected Phases
4
8
6.,....
2
'
P,ermdted Phases
.,
4 .:; „ 2
,. ,.•. ... r . =..6
Actuated Green, G (s)
18.0
18.0
39.0 39.0
x_
Effective Green, g"(s)
.. 18.0'
18 0
39 0 39 0
'
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance-Time;(s) ..,. '
0.28 0 26
,
0.60 0.60
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
448
315
962 1070
v/s.Ratw Prot
- �e
v/s Ratio Perm
0.17
c0 30
0.41 c0 62
v/c; Ratio;',..:..H...., ; .,,
.0.60..
_..,
,... 1 08 ,, _ .,, �..;
0 68 1 031, , ``;`
_ .. _Ms _.. .
Uniform Delay, d1
20.4
23 5
8 7 13 0
,..
Progression Factor
_.
1.00; .. 1 00 ..r a ... , ..;''
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
5.8
72.5
3.8 36.3
`26.2
96 0
12 5 49 3 -
Level of Seance
C
F
B D
'
Approach
•Delay
Approach LOS
-
C
._
F
.. _5s.n x.Y ••. •�.�. e .
B D
'
intersect orn umrnary xaa
" W .mgq
HCM Average Control Delay
43.2 HCM Level of Service
D
HCM Volume to,Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length s 14165.0 Sum of lost times
Y _ 9 O ( )
Intersection Capacity Utilization', -"-'ICU Level`of Service
y
8.0
, ,, . -H { '., ; •
c Critical Lane Group
' 2005 Background AM Volumes 5/11/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
Isaassfort-st51
I�
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
20: Mountain Vista & Timberline
—10. '0" ~
Lane Configurations
'+
Sign Control ! ;
Free.
Grade
0%
Volume (veh/h)
227 207
Peak Hour Factor
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/ )..
247w„ 225
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fbs)
Percent Blockage ..
,
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type,
Median storage veh)
vC, confliciing volume_
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf Vol'-
::.
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free
cM capacity (veh/h)
3/26/2001
.Free . 'Stop.
0% 0%
105
7760.'
47 :.,..
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
1.14,
84;. 65
51 _.
None
472
671
359
4.1
6.4
6.2
2.2
3.5
3.3
90
1090
377
685
Volume Total
472 198
116
Volume Left `.
0..;,. 114
65
Volume Right
225 0
51
cSH
1700 1090
470 <.
Volume to Capacity
0.28 0.10
0.25
Queue Length (ft)
019
24 "
Control Delay (s)
0.0 5.4
15.2
Lane LOS '.
, t A
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0 5.4
15.2
Approach LOS
C
Average Delay
' Intersection Capacity Utilization
n
L
3.6
54.2% ICU Level of Service A
2005 Background AM Volumes 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 5
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
15: CR 52 & CR 9 3/26/2001
JM&v*WWW=N� fRMEBTANEB
R%WB0AWPMMMN
B W N KWW
MKq.wS-UT-T7$-
N
Lane Configurations
Stops
.........
ree
'Free
Grade
0%
0% 0%
V6lUme:(veh/h)rl-.,-,-�,��,!,".
Peak Hour Factor
,'-1
0.92
0 0, 0
0.92 0.92 6.92 0.92 0.92 06. 6'20.92
721,�,,
0.92 0.92 0.92
.0
0.92
Hourly w rate (v6h/h)
`1....
2
3 n
0
'
Pedestrians
Lan
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage u
Right turn flare (veh)
Med'dian'J'Y'lp" 9''
Median 'stora6e 'v'eh)
None
Non
iic; , 66, n-f I i ct i n q', volume
122 116 i ""08
116", 7-
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stag6,2'conf,voI
tC, single (s)
�_jl � 1,
,
6.5 62
2 �:It
16.5 6.'2"' '4'.1
4"IF"
tC, 2:st
T77
W 11
tF (s) pO queuef
.- ree
3.5
1100�'
4.0 3.3
�,��100
3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
71 k -- ---- --
Y-DENA P',
z�-,98u;,�AOOI-�- -�
! .
cM capacity (veh/h)
846
772 982
859 773 1043 115-20"'�:
1581
L ""V
01i r �ion,-.L�ahe*�, i ��-q E Bj1 �-B
1 B.a1`I&TSB 1!t:-
Volime Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
1 ,
0
20 i':! 32,
13 0
.1
Z. ,
.... ..
3
cSH
846
913 1520
1581
Volume 4o Capacity �`.'.
Queue Length (ft)
0.00
6
0.02;0 00
2 0
0
Control Delay
9.0
S
Lane LOS
A
A
A
Approach- Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9;3'
A
9.0 z
A
J,
I
I
I
Average Delay 1.6
, Intersection Capacity Ytilization, -14.4% ICU Level of Service
2005 Background AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 4
Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Unsignalized Interser ...in Capacity Analysis
' 9: Country Club & North Lemay 3/26/2001
--v %< �- t 4\ t/P. It. 1 4/
o�. m
B m
.�-a
B
.
�
Lane Configurations
Si n-Control Stop
9
Volume (veh/h) 7 89
Peak Hour Fi6for, 0 92 0 92;
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 8 97
4*
:, StoP '.°.. ,.......Sfop..,.>
86 215 N170 5 37 70
'0.92 , - 0.92: �0 92 _ 0 92 0 92 tl 0 92
93 234 185 5 40 76
73 18 153 7
0 ;92 0 92: ' 0 9_2 - 0 92
79 20 166 , _u -8
Volume Total (vph) 198 424
196
193
'
S S i 4 'M Y tl x5i Y ,fY TL
Volume Left;(�ph)-�' _Mi,.,,` 40 . 20.`
Volume Right (vph) 93 5 79 8
_ `'0 2 0 1,0 -0 2 0.0 .
• ;- •. •'e KILr.r .. ➢rS�L-0A�.a.%vJ%YR"i"M''S3. ' .1 li ".Y. LA... r..a.-....'n. ...L.. X3.YY C1 _
Departure Headway (s) 5.5 6.2 5.9 6.1
•-• 4
Deg"ree Utilization,,x 0 30 0 73 '�
Capacity (veh/h) 593 539
0 32
553
- pY 4S 4Y
0 33 ; 7
562
ConErol D61ay (s) :s 109 237"
Approach Delay (s) 10.9 23.7
11 6
11.6
: 11 9 _._.`.m`'
11.9
X"'
Approach LOS -- B C
„. .. . . �.......
B
r . F
B� µ
nt6rsW no ��8umma
Delay a 16 6
HCM Level of Service C
Intersection.Capacity Utilization ..-._.'4.+...
89
. ,
ICU Level of Service
.. r naa...u..re.. ._t..... re...e. _ .......:g a. . :...:u -."' �......<.:�........i.:..:..............a.'rl
1
C'
1
2005 Background AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
' Isaassfort-st51
I
l�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
L
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Interseu.in Capacity Analysis
7: CR52&CR 11 3/26/2001
10. --v %,r *-- '1- 4 /0. Is. -V
Lane Configurations
Sign Con
Stop
'Stop
.'.Free
,.
Free';
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume 3
1
52
10',
i 2 2.,%
139,
Peak Hour Factor 6.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly f I 6W- " rat e''(Ve h`/ h-)! Tt,' 3
;I
57:
4
0
11
24
:,-'.151
7 17
33,T:b
Pedestrians
Lane Wiclth(ft),I:
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Perc nt
Right turn flare (veh)
Median 'type
,None
None
.`:1,�.........
Median storage veh)
vc,,Iconflicting�!voiumig585
"
577
,337
631
574
54j
337
... ...
VC1, stage"i con'fvol
vC2, stag&2'-66hf._V'o'l;'
tC, single (s) 7.1
6.5
6.2
71
6.5
6.2
4.1
4.1
j tC, 2.sta e
9. (s),:-,
tF (s) 3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue re-" _.;99
-00
�92 ....
"g
�"_`QIoa
cM capacity (veh/h) 407
............
414
.. 353 416 892
705
1222
1422
VolumeTOtal
61
15
182
354
Volume Left
3
4
24
17
Volume Riglif 757
11.
7
CSH
670
621
1222
1422
Volume to Ca
0 9
�,;O�02
0.02�-'
Queue Length (ft)
7
2
1
1
Control Delayjs),�
110.9
1.2
Lane LOS
B
B
A
"A
Approach Dela (s)'�'
10.9
0.9
1.2
7"
Approach LOS
B
B
Average Delay 2.0
IntersectionCa*' UM'' 354% ... elofServ16e
pac ti ization �J
2005 Background AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
Isaassfort-st51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized lntersec,,,)n Capacity Analysis
3: Country Club & CR 11 3/26/2001
Lane Configurations
Si ""* C I
Grade
Volume (vefi7h) 6�
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Hourliv, flow rate ve 17h 4:
Pedestrians
Stop
0%
66 _714 5
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 _0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
L6h'e'Widtfi7
7=7
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Ner'cent 8lo'6ka"-9'6-"
11
Right turn flare (veh)
m6dian t
one N on 771H
jyp
Median storage veh)
'conflidtqg kU'e
v'C m'
:67 6T 454
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
v. _'stad 2.con wo
tC, single (s)
7 i
4.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
stadoI'Z
.... .. ...
3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
_�75-�
6�_
99'�'� P-1 4 100
"415
: ��' " - �
'356
CM capac'it'ykveh/ h!-)_"
42 4 726 277 996 1106 1526
151
Volume Left
104
0
39 72
0
Va6me- 0'',
146
cSH
415
708
316 1106
1700
'VolUrne to Ca'p'i
0.21
a
Queue Length (ft)
25
20
17 5
0
Con rol De
Lane LOS
C
11.5
B
9.0-;"'•F4 - -----
C A
Approach,, Delay �'(s),!
Approach LOS
13.5
B
�
�''O I�x
,t 1665stwiffaiVE 77,777-74757
J16 77 _41=744
Average Delay 5.7
I'n-lorsectio6C66a6it.y�(ifilization
Ic
LlLeivelofigery wl,:"
17
L
I
I
2005 Background AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: Vine & North Lemay 5/11/2001
--v 4e 4\ t `► 1
Lane Configurations
r'(�
,�,
�,
r�►
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900:
1900
1900.
1900, r:1900 19W: ,
1900
1900
1900 ,1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane�Util. Factor :i '
1.00'>
,`1 00' :" ,
���
1,Q0
R,� ,., �'
1,00
Frt
0.96
0.95
0.99
1.00
FIf;Protected'.
0.99
..�
0 98
�00
�::..
? '00a
Said. Flow (prot)
1763
1734
1841
1845
FIt.Permitted
0 94;•
<.
0 86
0 96
0i89
Satd. Flow (perm)
1662
1512
1775
1662
Volume (vph) .,ax`. , w,30
91 63 ° 66 k r 61 ,.86
33
613
49 52°
461
-19
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
Ad)" Flow,(vPh)
99 .
F 68
72.....E 66 93
36 6
666
53.... 57
501
...._
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
200
0
.....
0 231 0
0
_Z
755
_r ..,
0 0
.
579
_..♦`21
0
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
4
Perm Perm
8 2
Perm-, ppx
6
Permitted Phases
_
Actuated Green, G (s)
16.0
16.0 36.0
36.0
Effective
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.27
0.27 0.60
0.60
Clearance;Tme(s),.. ,,.... �
4.0`'� ,< ..., .. ....�4.0...5'4 .., ;; '. <4s0
` `_'..,,.'...4s0-= •:-"
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
443
403 1065
991
-.
v/siRatio Proi
v/s Ratio Perm
0.12
c0.15 c0.43
0.35
v(c-Ratio
57: 0 71
�0,58
..... ..
Uniform Delay, d1_
18.3
19.0 _ 8.4�
7.4
Progression,Factor :. _.,:
,.a.
1 00,;�
t °,1 00 _ , , .,� 1,.00,
1.00. •: .v. �`
_ ➢v , _ f
Incremental Delay, d2
3.3
5.8 4.0
2.5
Delay (s)
21 6
24 9 12'3
; 9
'A
Level of Service
C
C B
Approach Delay. (s) �...,�
Approach LOS
21 6,
C
�24 9 . _ ' _ ; ;,, , 123
C...< B
<9 9
A
ntersectiol ummary� .�
: a'-2
z ', ,.° » *::..,
�•.y -„ "° '. r ...
'
HCM Average Control Delay
14.2
HCM Level of Service
B
HCM Volumelo Capacity. ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity`:Utilizati-on
,...., _067 ., s x_..,. _._......
60.0 Sum of lost time (s)
_108 7% ICU,Level of Service.
...
8.0
F
c Critical Lane Group
r
' Existing PM Volumes 5/11/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
I
P
I
I
I
I
11
HCM Unsignalized Intersec,.in Capacity Analysis
20: Mountain Vista & Timberline 3/26/2001
Lane Configurations
Sign Cont' "j�k'-Freb'�':
,gn rol
Grade 0%
-,roe, —
0%
8t J�x�,
0%
Volume (v6h/h) 2
-x, 4
-KR
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
HoUrlyfl6w,r6
47'
Pedestrians
76 f vol'
,
stag?
tC, single (s)
-2
4.1 6.4
pO,queue free %
96
c'Mc`apacity(veh/h')-
1464
634 955
Volume Total
123 178
249
Volume Left
Volume Right
45
0
140
cSH
1700
464"
782
Volume to Capacity
0.07
0.04
0.32
Queue Lengft,(ft),—`
I ' ' ' " 11
11-1- ,
, ., I ..3, ,'� � , T
I I
Control Delay (s)
La'neLOS
0.0
2.6
11.7
0
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
2.6
11.7
Aporoach, LO&
I
I
I
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0% ICU Level of Service A
Existing PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 5
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Intersect,un Capacity Analysis
15: CR 52 & CR 9 3/26/2001
Lane Configurations
A
Sign Control;,
Grade
Volume(veh/h)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly 'flow .1'rAte (veh/h)
Pedestrians
La6eWidth,'(ft)
Walking . Speed (ft/s ,
P�rtenf!3106)Rage-'
Right . turn 1. flare I (veh)
Median
Median storage veh)
0. volume; .
�C','.conflid-bh �v' lu,
vC1, stage .1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2'conf vol`~
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stag6j0l'
tF (s)
00,:queue .fr66 %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Stop:
Free
0%
5,, 1
63
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
None None
.128 11211, ,,'V42121
7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1
120 2
jFree..`:
0%
- 1 39 0
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
6.5
6.2 4.1
0
4.1
4.0
3.3 2.2
2.2
'100,
768
994 1567
1531
Volume Total
2'23
711,.,'
46
Volume Left
0
12
1
-3
Volume Righ
"b,
cSH
768
858
1567
1531
Volume to Capacity.'
0.00
0.,03.,
000
0.00
Queue Length (ft)
0
2
0
0
Control Delay (s)
9.7
9.3`
-,��0�1
-0,5
Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)',-'�-
91
9.3
0.1 -
:-0.5
Approach LOS
A
A
t h t er fs 6 c t 16 hi S i j M, r 6 6 If 1.5, 14-*,S� 10 IN4 W
Average Delay
1.9
ity
Intersection.'Capac Utilization
��-:.113.7%:
ICU LeveI',o-fS6r-vice A
Existing PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 4
Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Unsignalized InterseaIon Capacity Analysis
' 9: Country Club & North Lemay 3/26/2001
Movement4 I IMI4
BL
EBF
EBR,
W L�� :
-
BR
, ;: B . ,.
.. w
NB n ,'..
Lane Configurations
44
4*
4
Sign Control
p,Stop
:.
Stop
Stop
`.:.:
Stop
Volume (veh/h)
5
70
44
72
55
18
62
136
131
8
68 3
'
Peak Hour Factor
0:92
0.92
0.92
0:92
0 92 ':.0.92
i 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
5
76
48
78
60
20
67
148
142
9
74 3
Volume Total (vph)
129
158
358
86
Volume Leff(vph)
5
78
� ., 67
. 9
Volume Right (vph)
.
48
20
142
3
'
Hadj (s) `., ..
0.2:
0.1
-0.2
0 0
Departure Headway (s)
,'
5.0
5.3
4.6
5.1
Degree Utilization, x
0.113
0.23:
0.45
0 12 ',
'
Capacity (veh/h)
661
529
757
670
Control Delay, (s)9a)'.
9.9
.14.3
8.8;
`. .
Approach Delay (s)
9.0
9.9
11.3
8.8
'
Approach LOS
f„—e.
A`
A�
B
A
e r s ✓3x
Infersection8ummary��z .:�:.� ,��_ ,fuf,;s_a ,F. �#�_
`�.a� ax..-r°
a z T T' t>
��' »_.F. ��>.
Delay
10.3
1
HCM Level of Service
B
Intersection Capacity Utilization
'52'8%:
,ICU Level of, Service,
A
[1
I
Existing PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Intersectnin Capacity Analysis
7: CR52&CR 11 3/26/2001
M 129 _115
AW15TOWK YWN,
Lane Configurations
Sign Control',
Stop`Stop
"
Free
Grade
Volume (veh' u.5
0%
0
000% 0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate VW11)
Pedestrians
7V
0 �
,
5 '0 o 0
Lane Width
Walking S7peed ("It/'s)""
4,:i
Percent OCKage"""",
Right turn flare (ve"h'
Median tyo 1 4
Median storage veh)
i "volumeiiii�'-
vC, conflidtin -:.
None None,,,io� .. .. .... 1� , , " �� . ... .....
u,�
' - -- d
105� .3 :'�t:-107,� �W-
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage2 b ... 661 vol
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2 7.1 6 5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
po queue
cM capacity (v'eik/'h)-
��100 .,'
V6
782
Aoo
��:
"l 04'3'
0 - -":", - - -- -------- ..... ..
0 1 1
8 , 67 . 785 1005 1 , 581 11 1,00 1540
J
Volume
Volume Left
4`
0
5,
68.1
32
Volume Right.
cSH
4
1043
0�,
867
1581
1540
Volume to taR'
agity
0.
'00
0.01
0.0U
.. .... . ...
Queue Length (ft)
S
Control Delayt(')
Lane LOS
0
8.5
A
0
9.2
A
0
0.6
A
0
`6.0111] .. .... .
Approach Delay(s),
Approach LOS
-.8.5
A
A
I
I
I
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection:Calp 13.7%- �Utilization„;ICU Level-.'-6"f Seance y ;;A
Existing PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Interseciion Capacity Analysis
3: Country Club & CR 11 3/26/2001
l 4\ T 1 *�
Lane Configurations
Y
#'
T+
Sign Control `
.:Stop.
Free`
Grade
0%
0%
00/0
-
Volume (veh/h)„
28
83
-; 1:11
69,
30> ,,, 23
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
30
90
75`.
33 ";; 25
,.:
.;121
Pedestrians
Lane Width
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type::
None
�.
_...+wJ.F.,..
Median storage veh)..
vC, conflictin volume.. �
g
,38T
45
, 58...
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2'conf vol
,
tC, single (s)
6.4
6.2
4.1
tC, 2 stage
M
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
po queue free
95
91 :
92
�.
cM capacity (veh/h)
588
1025
1547
Volume Total
121,
196,
`.�:58"
Volume Left
30
121
0
Volume Right ... ', .
,a:. 90'
0
: .25
cSH
863
1547
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.14,,
0.08
0:03
Queue Length (ft)
12
6
.
0
Control Dela Y„O '
9.8
4.9,
'0.0
Lane LOS
A
A
Approach Delay: (s)
9.8,
4.9
=0:0
Approach LOS
q
Average Delay 5.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 131.2% 'ICU Level of Service- A
Existing PM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
22: Vine & North Lemay 5/11/2001
Lane Configurations
ideal Flow'_
190W 900 1900
_'-�."
1900 q 900'
Total Lost time (s4) 4.0
P.n
4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util
.,actor;,,l
Frt 0.93
0.97 0.99 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1725
1773 1832 1846
errjjift6&
"lt1'p
Satd. Flow (perm) 1688
1437 1695 1793
MW 83
Peak -hour factor, PH F 6.92 0.92
az
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 6.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
.....
Adt'0 90] 3 7 . 4 ,'34
,FloW,'. N
�O�'
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 172
0 0 219 0 0 439 0 0 724 0
Turn Type erm�,
_0'rniartpri Phnsp_s 4
8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 3 1 b.0
EffectiveM jIM
PlIU,
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.60 0.60
A. 9 5 7`4 0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 450
383 1017 1076
RafW Prot F54'F7"1'KK'FZ
.
v/s' Ratio Perm 0. 10
c0.15 0.26 c0.40
0', 38,;.-
a
�43,:.,K �67
Uniform Delay, dl 18.0
19.0 6.5 8.0
Progression, Factor m�'
11.
40 'nKl ,
9�4
Incremental Delay, d2 2.5
6.1 13 3.4
4A,
belay (s)
Nt=�M 2
Level of Service C
_iI,
C A B
Approach ' YA�20W p
I 'R.0
I
ADDroach LOS C
C A B
HCM Average Control Delay
13.3
HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume t0 Capacitratio. W
Actuated 'Cycle 'Length (s)
60.0
Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
_tidrf
lrite"'rsec't'i6 .... n;'�'Q a "a ... c' i't'y" �K af 4, ;'a
7 O/o A U:LeV%, n 4 a
c Critical Lane Group
Existing AM Volumes 5/11/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
Isaassfort-st51
' HCM Unsignalized Interse(,..jn Capacity Analysis
' 20: Mountain Vista & Timberline 3/26/2001
Movement,_. 7t
a ERT— ;EBR:
WBL
>•WBT, NBL ,NBR .
'
Lane Configurations
Y
Sign Control'
g
Free
Free: Stop,
Grade
0%
0% 0%
'
Volume (veh/h) ,
123
94
95'.-41
•::22
43
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
Hourly flow. rate (veh/h)
134
102
103
45 24
:, 47.
'
Pedestrians
Lane Width'(ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type ;...
None
T
Median storage veh)
,..
'
vC; conflicting volume
:
2363,:,
436
185..
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage '2.conf vol
:
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage: (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
92
_ �" •96
. <'95,'
cM capacity (veh/h)
1331
533
857
birection;jLane #�,, °EB 1';f
'
Volume Total
236
148
71
Volume Left
-, 0
103
.24
Volume Right'
102
0
47
cSH
:1700
1331
711
Volume to Capacity
0.14
0.08
0.10
Queue Length (ft) =,_0
6
�.
8
n ..... ..
Control Delay (s)
0.0_
5.7
10.6
_ ..
Lane LOS :
'. A
B.
..
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
5.7
10.6
Approach LOS
B
"
Intersecbon:Summary . �_��;� .�`,.-�a�.7
'�,,,I _.i.:
Average Delay. '
3.5-:=
Intersection Capacity Utilization
35.5%
ICU Level of Service A
Existing AM Volumes 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 5
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Intersea,in Capacity
Analysis
15: C R 52 & C R 9_
3/26/2001
'
Mavement4 � .. • w T_ ,EBL ,
, ;Ei3 _, EM BL ' WBt �UVBR- NBL NBT . NBR SBL .,:SBT zaSBB
'
Lane Configurations►
«�►
�.
Sign Control`.,:.
",.
Stop
: Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
00/.
0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
ill,
0
0
11 - ; 0 5 0
25
1 3,
65 0
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
1:
0
0
12 0 . 5 0
27
1 3
71 0
'
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft) ..,
Walking Speed (ft/s)
'
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median toe: :`i
:..
None
None". ;
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume::
110.
105
71
105 - 105 -28- 71
28
-.
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage"2:conf vol,
'
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7 1 6 5 6.2 4.1
4.1
t
tC,".2 stage, .(s) .
:.
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2
2.2
p0 queue free%
100
100
100
99 - 100- : 99 .100
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
862
783
992
874 784 1048 1530
1585
Directwn,Lane#,.,���,`�EE8,1,�:�WB1�d.wN6.1���SB,�1,g:�
Volume Total
1
17
28
74
Volume Left
1
12
0
3
Volume Right
0':
<: 5
1
0:
cSH
862
921
1530
1585
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
Queue Length (ft)
0
1
0
0
Control Delay (s)
9.2"
:. 9.0
0.0
0.3
Lane LOS
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
9 2
A
9.0
A
0.0
0 3
In ret section Summary A t aR
fW v'44.U1 ivr �wi' f '. p'1 4xS
Average Delay
1.6
'
Intersection Capacity Utilization...
13.9%
ICU.Level of Service
A
Existing AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 4
' Isaassfort-st51
I
1
1
L
HCM Unsignalized Intersec. in Capacity Analysis
9: Country Club & North Lemay 3/26/2001
Lane Configurations
§SignControl ;'
Stop'!
4 ,
n: Stop g , , s Sto to
p
. _.
Volume (veh/h) 5
42
, .,... ... ....m.,..
78 105 42 4 34 60 35 14 126 5
P66k'Hour'l`actor, ,0 92
't0,:92'
0 92'„+ 92 � 0 92 0 92 v 0 92 „0`92` 4 0 92` s 0:92 0 92 "; 0.92
„
Hourly flow rate (veh%h) 5
46
.0
85 114 46 4 ..v 37 _ 65 38 15 137 5
Direction; Lade;#s�. -e��'. EB�1 �"•WB�1-;_ NB:1 SBr1 " `
Volume Total (vph) 136 164 140 158
A 1 h %�
i C P M1 L E 9
Volume Left (vph) 5 114 37 15
Volume Right (vph) 85 4 38 5
Had'1 s „ 0'3
O ,
Departure Headway (s) 4.5 4.9 4.7 4.8
R
Degree UUl"zat , x 0.17 0.22` 0 18>' 0 21 "xt
Capacity (veh/h) 747
Control Delays)
564
716 717
EF
Approach Delay (s) 8.4
Approach LOS ._ .., ., _ „A
9.4 8.8 9.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41 9% IGU L1.1 evel of Service A
_ -._. _.._.__._._ _a. .._
Existing AM Volumes 3/23/2001
Synchro 5 Report
Page 3
Isaassfort-st51
HCM Unsignalized Interseci,on Capacity Analysis
' 7: CR 52 & CR 11 3/26/2001
'
Movement �,. ;
EBL
EBT� s4
EBRF WBL;,=WBT,�` WBR „NBL ",=,NB. NBR .SBL„ v BTSB,,
Lane Configurations
�►
.�►
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
t
:- 1'°
6
4
. 0
5' 5: 21 5'
5
;> 45 0
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 6.92 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourlyflow rate veh/h)
.
. „` 1
1
, .% 7'
4
0
5 5 23 5
5
49 -0
Pedestrians
Lane Width:.(ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
'
Percent Blockage ;
Right turn flare (veh)
_._
Median type
one:,
" '.•
None
Median storage veh)
'
vC, conflicting volume
; �' 102
,991
, = 49
103
96
26 49
�28
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
_ _..
vC2, stage 2 conf vol '
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.51
6 2 4 1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
;
.
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3 3 2.2
2.2
p0 queue -free % :�100
100
�. �99
99
100
788
'::� 99 .; 100 "
�100
,
cM capacity (veh/h)
870
786
1020
866
10'50 1558
1585
DirecUon7;Ta"he # `; -0EB 1>, GVB NB£1 �a µ
Volume Total �:- 9_'
10:
; 34
54_
;
Volume Left
1
4
5
5
Volume Right _
7
5
5
0 .:
...
cSH
963
960
1558
1585
Volume to Capacity,
. 0.01
O:01
0.00
0.00
Queue Length (ft)
1
1
0
0
Control Delay (s)
8.8
;8.8
" 1.2
0.8
Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
8.8
: 8.8
-1.2
0.8
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersectwn`Summary Y4
Average Delay
2.3
'
Intersection Capacity Utilization
13.3%
ICU Level of Service A
LJ'
' Existing AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 2
' Isaassfort-st51
'
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Country Club & CR 11
3/26/2001
'
EBL w EBR
" NB m NB 5SU _.SBR
��. _.
=' =_,MR"I.0
... ��� .m:� a �_
'
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Stop .
`"
Free - Free'
Grade
0%
0% 0%
Volume (yeh/h)
14
. 122:
1 60
, 21 70.
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (veh/h) ;
tPedestrians
15
133.
65,
23 76 ';
22
Lane Width (ft).
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type'
None:
Median storage veh)
VC, conflicting volume',;
240:
87
- 98.,
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
tC, single (s)
6.4
6.2
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) �.
p0 queue free % ,, __
3.5
98
3.3
, 86
2.2
,,_ 96.
,."
cM capacity (veh/h)
715
972
1495
'
Volume Total „
148.
88
; ; .98
Volume Left
15
65
0
' Volume Right
133
0'
22;'
cSH
937
1495
1700
Volume to Capacity : ;,
0.16
.0.04
. 0.06
Queue Length (ft)
14
3
0
Control Delay (s) - ;,
9.6'
5.7'
0.0
Lane LOS
A
A
Approach, Delay (s) '
Approach LOS
9.6
A
5.7
0.0'
Average Delay
Intersection Capacitj Utilization
5.7
27.2%
ICU Level
of Service rA
LJ
1 Existing AM Volumes 3/23/2001 Synchro 5 Report
Page 1
' Isaassfort-st51
000
C�t-VP-� \5/5o
Q
a
V I IJ F
El
LC.Fl Ci L
W74D
!ZMoU�.1�q.�tJ
vVl:?—, Ar D�
S 1 I �- /a �E1=a� D'fRr1FF�L
F-ULL �V lLD -OJT
f-r j P r-!
2,, 4,4- s 'T-)t" s-cs 7-
Richard's
Lake
Terry.
Lake
l/r
y1�1i Lang
Pond
rrf3tl- �
w
MO
T.
0 .25 .5 I
MILES
L S A
LEGEND
xxxxx 4r. 7r1
RICHARDS IA
E RD (CR 52(
P
�r
V
u
��
\\
M
�
\
MOUNTAIN VISTA
�r
37�uy �
1-- 951Yt
Ilndenmeier
Lake 3l �10
qt/z7 VP3—'Io
E VINE DR
FIGURE 9
Richard's Lake Overall Development Plan
Project Traffic Assignment
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
ro
AM
/ PM
I�
I '
67/47
rol—Frrww
N
J•
DOUGLAS
1 /8 --�
t
rl
I I
—89/292
I Site
I 1
15/11
j 246/157 --�
----� 67/47
O
N
RICHARD'S
N
LAKE ROAD
F
?0
�
9�
8//5
N
�
r
+ /47
5
C� 6�F 26/86
J
+ 7/2
�44/30 VINE
i/B f 20/62
N \
O1
N
44A
/ I 1
48 160 f 27/90 1
78/49 -- C.R. 50
5l8/38 --�
r i
�W
Mixed -Use 0
District rr
FULL DEVELOPMENT
PEAK HOUR SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
Figure 10
V ' LC L'51? f-c�. �PO44- fLt I
C
I
1 ,
I
`
'
I
J
�3/11
I�
I,
F,
- �tiu►%C��t I
4
� LDS L14,Ls
l9`I6 T.�s
N
DOUGLAS
r-3/8
0/4 --\
) r
('
AM / PM
N
.----.co
t 1 n
rJ 9
1 Site
I 1
'
1 1 126 79
�
�
,
1
C.4
RICHARD'S
LAKE ROAD
C.R. 52
�
2/1CD
°c°
1/-62/3B
C�
r�
— 62/3B
57/36 +
¢
V
S'
N
'
Cq,
M
—
0
Ire/
6oz 40/139
}
fj
N
21/72 —'^
y H�
C.R. 50
--14/46
39/25 —
}
13/9 --N
\
LU
Ln
'
W
W
cl
11?7C4
CU
u
OK
rn
m�
t2
VINE
to
m
INITIAL PHASE
1
PEAK HOUR
SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
Figure 9
Total with Proposed Traffic
t
North
AM/PM o
m
rn
0
Ul f�N
LO
I l- It M
CO CO m
I L
34/75
95/137.7 10
//o //2/
101/77.�
'�- y
XI- w ic�k UA-57-,
44/89 UX /I V
108/101 1157l/97
139/103 /V9///a
C� S
IqoCO
moo,
�tvv
v
(Ps
M
0
All Project Traffic
f
North
AM/PM
CO
IT
CO N
(CD V O`
CO N O
33/45
31/6',jO
18/51
*\- 4/3
4 38/40
J�,-- 47/37
tchv
N D) CO
\ N I
N 0)
r CO
(`7
Project Traffic, Page 4
W a to rfi e l d/Wate rg l e n
1
1
1
[]
1
r
n
1
Project Traffic, Page 3
WalMart
New Belgium
Project Traffic, Page 2
Gillespie
Old Town North
8/16
11/16
16/9
18/18 .�
00
rn
11
i
1
Project Traffic
Hearthfire
1
t
1 North
AM/PM
1
1
i
1
1 Richards Lake
i
1]
i
1
1
1]
1
1
1
Existing Vine Drive and LeMay Avenue
t
North
AM/PM
-a,0
.
� N
Ln
M
O) 7 N
O co
co (D co
/2/33 11/30
7j poo 64/91
gy/7D 83/63 —�
*\-- 40/86 '14 h r
1 70/61 77 / !P--7
Vine
M ("J 0)
M �
M f,7M
co
co
ba
t+l
CAS
2z�vc. a 2 '0/'/
ISA ASSO<:IA'1'HS, INC.
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
Parcel Land Use
Size
DUs
ITE Code
Rate
ADT
Enter
AM
Exit
Total
Enter
PM
Exit
Total
A
Single Family/Multi Family
10.77
acres
75
210
9.57
721
15
44
58
49
28
77
B
Single Family/Multi Family
io.62
acres
74
210
9.57
711
14
43
57
49
27
76
C
Single Family/Multi Family
33.07
acres
231
210
9.57
2215
45
134
178
151
85
236
D
Single Family/Multi Family
6.47
acres
45
210
9.57
433
9
26
35
30
17
46
E
Commercial
I0000
sf
710
11.01
IIO
14
2
16
3
12
15
F
Single Family/Multi Family
5.96
acres
72
210
9.57
684
14
41
55
47
26
73
G
Single Family/Multi Family
7.85
acres
63
210
9.57
6o1
12
36
48
4.1
23
64
H
Single Family/Multi Family
6.51
acres
78
210
9-57
748
15
45
6o
51
29
80
I
Commercial
10000
sf
710
I1.0I
IIO
14.
2
16
3
12
15
J
Neighborhood Center
30000
sf
814
40.67
1220
41
6
47
8
37
45
K
Single Family/Multi Family
3.98
acres
36
210
9.57
343
7
21
28
23
13
37
L
Single Family/Multi Family
2.43
acres
22
210
9.57
209
4
13
17
14
8
22
M
Single Family/Multi Family
8.63
acres
69
210
9.57
661
13
40
53
45
25
70
O
Single Family/Multi Family
17.93
acres
126
210
9.57
1201
24
72
97
82
46
128
P
Single Family/Multi Family
4.44
acres
36
210
9-57
340
7
21
27
23
13
36
Q
Single Family/Multi Family
8.6
acres
69
2I0
9.57
658
13
40
53
45
25
70
996
1o967
26o
584
845
663
427
logo
9
3/27/01 (trip-gen.x1s\Sheet1)
Attachment "B"
PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Pedestrian Destinations
(within'% mile of project site)
Origin
(Project Site)
Rec.
Res.
Inst.
Ofc/Bus.
Com.
Ind.
Other
(Specify)
Recreation
Residential
—"
Institution
(school, church, chic)
Office/
Business
Commercial
Industrial
Other
(Specify)
Based upon the project's land use classification, the pedestrian Level of Service analysis for directness, continuity, street crossings, visual
interest/amenity, and security should consider the applicable destinations which are located within one quarter mile of the project site.
DATE:
TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
' Attachment "A"
Transportation Impact Study
Base Assumptions
Z
Study Area Boundaries
North: y' South: GZSL
East: G�, i West:�I
Study Years
Zaoo _ Zooms _ Zp LO
Future Traffic Growth Rate
Study Intersections
1. All access drives
2. SZ/�
3. 5Z
4. Let-lA
5.
6.
7.
8.
Time Period for Study
AM v
PM
Sat Noon
Trip Generation Rates
=ra-
Trip Adjustment Factors
Passby:
.&�
Captive
Market:
Overall Trip Distribution -,,,,,.,I ,--,
North
South
East
West
Mode Split Assumptions
L
Committed Roadway Improvements
Other Traffic Studies
s
Areas Requiring Special Study
Date: 9 - (.' oo
Traffic Engineer: L
' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
MARCH 77. 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
' volumes exceed 150 in urban areas and 200 in rural -plains areas. Based on current counts and
' projected growth rates, long term background traffic growth projections indicate daily volumes
on CR 52 east of the project site may exceed 200 vehicles per day, confirming the Master Street
Plan designation.
' Realignment of CR 11 immediately south of CR 52:
CR 11 may be realigned 20-30 feet east of its current location in order to mitigate residential
' impacts to existing homes along the west side of CR 11. If this realignment proceeds, it is
recommended that CR 11 north of CR 52 also be realigned to preserve the long-term recommend
geometrics and traffic control.
1
1
1
1
1
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
MARCH 27. 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISFD MARCH 2001
' 2. Street Layout
Multiple direct connections at an interval of 660 feet are required along all perimeter
boundaries of the site. If the 660 feet spacing is not met, then an alternative compliance
request should be submitted.
Based on the approved Master Street Plan, the proposed collector street network within
the project needs to align with streets planned within adjacent projects including
Richards Lake PUD and Gillespie Farm ODP. The collector street located along the No.
' 8 Outlet Ditch as described in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and Master Street Plan
needs to be either located on the Plan or an alternative compliance request should be
submitted.
The revised site plan identifies access points along both CR 11 and CR 52 that fulfill the
660 foot spacing requirement, and which align with the Richard's Lake and Gillespie
Farms proposed street networks. All streets identified on the Master Street Plan have
been incorporated into the plan.
3. Pedestrian Access
The off -site regional trail alignment should be coordinated with the Richards Lake PUD
' and Gillespie Farm ODP Projects.
Regional trail connections and alignments have been established with consideration of
the Gillespie Farms and Richard's Lake projects, including a grade separated underpass
for both CR 11 and CR 52 connections and three pedestrian crossings of the No 8 Outlet
' canal.
Additional Issues:
' Improvements to CR 52 east of the project:
Projections for traffic growth on CR 52 east of the Lind project depend in part on the
' attractiveness of the facility as a travel route. In the short term it is likely that most of the project
traffic will avoid the use of the gravel road as long as a paved alternative with similar travel
times is available. Given the location of the development, most trips destined to the south and
' east of the project will use CR 11 and Mountain Vista. In the long term, this segment of CR 52
is identified on the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan as a Minor 2 lane Arterial (paved).
Once this facility is improved, a percentage of the trips destined to the east of the project and I-
25 will likely begin to use CR 52 and CR 9 as well.
The recently revised Latimer County Road Standards identifies minimum road surfacing
' requirements in Section 4-2, which indicate that pavement is not required until daily traffic
LSA ASSOCIA"TES, INC.
MARCH 27, 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CEN'TEX HOMES CDP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
I
I
I
u
[_1
I
1
Additional comments will be considered as they are received.
3b. The TIS needs to take into account the traff c from Hearthfire, Richard's Lake — Phase 1,
Storybook, Gillespie Farms, and any other currently proposed projects in the area.
The TIS has taken into account the traffic generated by the Waterglen and Waterfield
developments and the Mountain Vista Plan transportation recommendations, as agreed to
in the initial scooping meeting with the City Traffic Engineer on 9/6/2000. The
Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions worksheet, which outlines these
requirements, is included in the appendix of the revised Traffic Impact Analysis. In
addition to these studies, the Richard's Lake and Gillespie Farms development proposals
were considered and influence the revised alignments and classifications of the internal
roadways and trail system.
Since traffic from Richard's Lake Phase 1, Gillespie Farms, and Hearthfire is likely to
impact the study intersections, additional analysis of both short term and long term traffic
generated by these developments was included in the revised traffic impact analysis. The
inclusion of these studies does impact the recommendations of the revised version of the
traffic impact analysis, and further confirms the need for the Master Street Plan
improvements in the project area.
3c. The TIS must give an analysis for both the Country Club Road & County Road 11 and the
Country Club Road & North Lemay Avenue intersections.
The TIS has addressed the study intersections of CR 52 and CR 11, CR 52 and CR 9, and
Vine and Lemay, as well as all access drives, as agreed to in the initial scooping meeting
mentioned above. Analysis of these 2 additional intersections was included in the revised
traffic impact analysis.
3d. The project should have connectivity with the land across the ditch.
The revised site plan identifies two roadway connections and three pedestrian
connections across the ditch, providing excellent future access to development east of the
site.
3e. The current street layout does not assist in encouraging motorists to drive through the
development in a safe and lawful manner. Traffic Operations suggests street planning
that will reduce roadways that encourage speeding and cut-thru traffic.
The revised street layout incorporates T-intersections to calm traffic and reduce cut -
through potential in residential areas of the development.
Advance Planning Comments:
11
' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
MARCH 22. 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
' Signalization or roundabout traffic control is recommended and discussed in the TIS for
' each of the failing unsignalized intersections.
' RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS (DATED DEC. 289 2000)
Transportation Planning Comments:
' 2a. There is a concern about the adequacy of the proposed 2 points of access from County
Road 11 into the proposed residential Tract A.
' Access to the site along CR 11 will be provided at the two collector street intersections as
well as four additional minor access points to residential roadways that align with
' existing or planned streets in the Richard's Lake development.
' 2b. Show conceptual alignment and exit points of the proposed internal trail along the canal,
so other potential developers can connect to the system.
' The internal trail system has been relocated to the southwestern portion of the property
and connections to adjacent properties are shown on the revised site plan. Additionally,
two roadway connection points, which cross the canal and provide access to future
' development east of the project, have been identified in the revised site plan. Both are
illustrated in Figure 7 of the revised Traffic Impact Analysis.
' 2c. Are pedestrian access points to the regional trail system on the southwest corner of the
development at grade or separated? Please identify.
' The off-street bicycle and pedestrian trail on the southwest corner of the site connects to
the regional system with grade separated crossings of both CR 11 and CR 52.
' 2d. There is a need to arrange a development charrettes with the developer and adjacent
developers to determine proposed roadway classifications and actual alignments of the
proposed road network (internal and external).
' Professional communication between the Lind developer and adjacent developers
regarding both trail and roadway alignments is ongoing.
' Traffic Operations Comments:
3a. Their comments regarding the ODP do not reflect in-depth traffic review for project
impacts, only generalized land use -based traffic comments. In-depth comments on the
' TIS and the project will come with the Project Development Plan (PDP) review.
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
MARCH 27. 2001
'TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENTS (DATED DEC. 289 2000)
Engineering Comments:
' 1. Analysis of Vine and Lemay does not include all of the necessary backround traffic.
' Updated background traffic numbers have been provided by City engineering staff,
including WalMart traffic projections. This revision reflects the best available
background traffic data.
2. Geometry at Vine and Lemay is incorrect.
The westbound movement at the intersection currently has an informal right turn lane that
is not striped or officially recognized. The original analysis coded this as a lane for level
of service analysis. This revision has removed the right turn lane, and level of service
' analysis at the intersection reflects a single shared left -through -right lane.
3. Analysis uses progressing factor "1 " — not coordinated.
' Per the traffic engineer's request, the intersection was analyzed as a pretimed,
' uncoordinated signal with the optimal cycle length in this revision.
4. No neighborhood impact analysis or mitigation plan
' Neighborhood concerns related to new development and increased traffic are understood
by the developer and the developer has expressed willingness to discuss specific
' strategies to address resident's concerns. A formal neighborhood impact analysis was not
requested at the initial scoping meeting and was not identified in the base assumptions.
In addition, despite the residential character of Country Club Road, it is identified as a
' minor arterial on the adopted Master Street Plan. Minor arterials are not typically
addressed in a neighborhood traffic impact analysis, which is used to analyze traffic
impacts on Local streets.
' Transportation Planning Comments:
Why weren't WalMart traffic projections included in the TIS background numbers?
See above.
2. Address intersections identified as failing our APF criteria...
1
11
' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27, 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
1
1
APPENDIX
1
1
1
' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 22, 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
,
L
' CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the site investigation, current and projected operating conditions, and the preceding
' analysis, the following can be concluded:
• Under existing conditions, each of the key study intersections (CR 52 and CR 11, CR 52
' and CR 9, Country Club and CR 11, Country Club and Lemay, and Vine and Lemay ) is
operating at acceptable levels of service.
' • For the year 2005 background condition, Vine and Lemay, the Country Club and CR 11
and Country Club and Lemay intersections fall below acceptable levels of service. All
' other study intersections operate acceptably with the current geometry and traffic control.
• For the year 2005 total traffic condition, when the Lind project traffic is added to the
background, which includes the short-term traffic projections for the recent development
proposals and 2% background growth, CR 52 and CR 11 fails to meet acceptable levels
' of service, and Vine and Lemay, Country Club and CR 11, Country Club and Lemay
' continue to fail.
• If Richard's Lake Phase H is not approved, or if the adjacent developments do not
' develop to projected 2005 traffic levels, the existing geometry and traffic control may be
adequate in the short term at CR 52 and CR 11.
• In the short term, signalization or roundabout treatment is proposed for the unsignalized
intersections that are projected to fail.
' • For the 2020 background and total projected conditions, all intersections were found to
operate acceptably, with signalization of Country Club and Lemay, Country Club and CR
11, and CR 52 and CR 11, along with all -way stop control at CR 52 and CR 9 and grade
separation of Vine and Lemay.
• The three intersections that are failing in the short-term background and total traffic
conditions should be monitored for signal warrants as developments in the area proceed
• Multimodal level of service is excellent for bicyclists and pedestrians, with grade
separated connections to the regional trail system and adjacent developments. Transit
service could be provided in the future.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27. 2001
CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCII 2001
' STREET CROSSINGS
' The goal of LOS C will be exceeded for the street crossings of County Road 11 and County
Road 52, as these street crossings will be grade separated.
' VISUAL INTEREST AND AMENITY
' The proposed new development, required to meet current development and landscape standards
will achieve or exceed the LOS C threshold.
' SECURITY
tThe key requirement for achieving a LOS C for security is adequate lighting and line -of sight for
visibility. Both of these will be included in the design of the proposed project.
BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
Typically, bicycle facilities within the study area are primarily on street bike lanes. As Mountain
Vista is built out, these newly improved minor arterials of CR 11 and CR 52 will be constructed
with current bike lane standards. In addition, there is the Mountain Vista Trail system that will
travel though the westerly edge of the proposed Centex Homes Development Plan. This facility
will provide for excellent levels of service and grade separation, which will exceed the minimum
LOS C standard for residential areas.
' TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE
' There are no transit stops within a two-mile proximity of the project. It is anticipated, however,
that with future growth in the Mountain Vista Area, transit would be extended to the commercial
' mixed -use center to the south of the proposed project. With opportunities to connect to the south
and the mixed -use center via the proposed recreational trail or along the sidewalk and bike lanes
' on CR 11 and CR 52, there will be future opportunities for the future residents of Centrex Homes
to have transit opportunities.
1
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. 'TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27. 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
• Country Club and CR 11 would be signalized with a left turn lane and shared
' through -right turn lane in each direction except southbound, which would have a
dedicated right turn lane
' • Country Club and Lemay would be signalized with a left turn lane and shared
through -right turn lane in each direction
t• As an alternative to signalization of the three intersections mentioned above, modern
roundabouts could be analyzed for traffic control at these locations.
' PEDESTRIAN LEVELS OF SERVICE
The City of Fort Collins multi -modal transportation Level of Service Manual was used to assess
future pedestrian conditions. Based on requests by the City Traffic Engineer, two pedestrian trip
' pairs were required, project to recreational and project to proximate residential. The key
recreational element within the study area is a proposed Mountain Vista Master Plan Bicycle
Trail, which runs along the southwestern edge of the project. Proximate residential includes the
' proposed Richards Lake Development to the west.
DIRECTNESS
' The goal of LOS C for direct pedestrian access to proximate recreational and pedestrian
developments is achieved with the proposed project. The street and pedestrian system is
' designed to provide direct connections to the recreational trail and a northeast to southwest
pedestrian spine provides pedestrian directness to the grade separated trail crossings near the
' intersection of County Road 11 and County Road 52. This will provide a direct connection to
' both the Richards Lake proposed development and the Gillespie Farms development. In
addition, 3 pedestrian crossings of the No 8 Outlet canal are proposed to provide direct
' connection to future development east of the project.
CONTINUITY
' The goal of LOS C for continuity is achieved through a sidewalk system along the streets and the
northeast to southwest pedestrian connection to the trail system and adjacent residential
' developments.
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
MARCH 27. 2001
"PRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
TABLE 6
Long Term Intersection Operations - With Project
Peak Hour LOS
Intersection Control Movement AM PM
CR 52 and CR 9
All -Way Stop
EB
A
A
WB
B
B
NB
C
C
SB
A
A
CR 52 and CR it
Signal
EB
C
B
WB
C
C
NB
A
A
SB
A
A
Overall
B
A
Country Club and CR ii
Signal
EB
C
B
WB
B
B
NB
A
B
SB
A
A
Overall
A
B
Country Club and Lemay
Signal
EB
B
B
WB
D
C
NB
B
A
SB
B
A
Overall
C
B
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, acceptable operating conditions can be expected in both the
background and total traffic projections, with the following improvement assumptions at the
study intersections:
• CR 52 and CR 9 would be an all -way stop controlled intersection.
• CR 52 and CR 11 would be signalized with a left turn lane and shared through -right
turn lane in each direction, except the northbound, which should have a dedicated
right turn lane
DOUGIAS RD CR 54
m
Richard's
reT
Lake,
Lake
G
}`
�
O O
0/10
4— 140/220
It'
SI
Z--285/170'.
25/10
O
MO- X
o .ss .s I
MILES
L S A
LEGEND
F)O(M AM/I?M TRAFFIC COUNTS
Wyy
1i XKM
U
v2 o
40/125
(1-10/10
,r 175/130 CR 52
10/10 �
10/10—)
r
10/1D'
00
ono
Co �'
235/220 ---4
1
1 1
-- /
170/50
N O Na:
L
a
LindCMllill N N
Q O
.-'W40
,I
it-10/10
E-- 135/102
}
V
C-20/10
w
J
120/245''
Tr
O
vo
95/175 —)
1
85/45-30
NN
�M
185/205
j
570/530
'� N
SI
420/340 E VINE DR
80/135
!� �1
410/670 �
1 1
66/66
00
O N N
Q � P
O O O
h QOa
s
V
o n0o
ova
0/
-1
� 0/35
5/25
1�
115/40ITr
230/155-3p
OoOmo
of
v
P N 2
FIGURE 12
Center Homes Overall Development Plan
Long Term Total Traffic
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27. 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
conditions with background only, and total traffic, respectively. Long-term improvements such
as the extension of CR 11 south to Vine and the re -alignment of CR 50 were considered for trip
distribution purposes, and it was assumed that intersections at Vine and Lemay and Vine and
Timberline would be grade separated, per the Master Street Plan. The intersection of Vine and
Lemay will fail in the long term with or without the project, and improvements to the
intersection are limited until it becomes grade separated. While these network changes, along
with the planned activity center in the Mountain Vista and Timberline may not occur by the 2020
long term planning year, their ultimate development will influence traffic patterns in the area.
TABLE 5
Long Term Intersection Operations - Without Project
Peak Hour LOS
Intersection Control Movement AM PM
CR 52 and CR g
All -Way Stop
EB
A
A
WB
A
A
NB
A
B
SB
A
A
CR 52 and CR ii
Signal
EB
B
B
WB
C
C
NB
A
A
SB
A
A
Overall
A
A
Country Club and CR ii
Signal
EB
C
B
WB
C
B
NB
A
A
SB
B
A
Overall
B
A
Country Club and Lemay
Signal
EB
A
B
WB
B
B
NB
B
A
SB
B
A
Overall
B
A
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCII 27, 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
analysis, per their respective traffic studies. Clearly, both the timing and short-term magnitude
of these developments will dictate the need for improvements in the project area. If the
Richard's Lake project, for example, is not approved, the current intersection geometry and
traffic control may operate acceptably in the short run. If the surrounding projects do develop to
the projected levels, and if the Lind project develops fully by 2005, improvements to the failing
intersections may be necessary. Signalization of one or more of these intersections has been
previously identified as a long term need in the Gillespie Farms Transportation Impact Study,
and specific improvements are discussed in more detail in the long term traffic impacts section
below.
'
'
TABLE 4
Short Term Intersection Operations - With Project
Intersection Control
Movement
Peak Hour LOS
AM PM
'
CR 52 and CR it
Two -Way Stop
EB
WB
C
F
B
F
CR 52 and CR g
Two -Way Stop
EB
A
A
'
WB
A
B
Country Club and CR ii
Two -Way Stop
EB
F
F
WB
F
F
'
Country Club and Lemay
All -Way Stop
EB
C
F
WB
F
F
'
NB
C
F
SB
B
C
Vine and Lemay
Signal
EB
D
F
'
WB
F
F
NB
B
F
SB
E
C
Overall
E
F
' Long -Tenn Operations
Long-term operations were assessed for both background traffic growth and total traffic growth
' scenarios. Operating conditions are illustrated in Table 5 and Table 6, which represent
11
xOaTx
0 .25 .5 1
MILES
L S A
LEGEND
� �1C(M AM�PM TRAFFIC COUNTS
Z— X1(m
a
u
u
Richard's
o
Lake
�10/11
O�NI
onc\i
�6/6
IovO
C-202/15'CR52
,�,
12/12
3/1
1/0
I� J1
1/0-)
I I
0/2-)
I I
o•
�,�� 52/33
29/23
o. ^
N\[V
\a)\
I
E-345/267 Long.-;,
ON —
It SI
�-- 332/227
7/10 -
I� T j1
-;
167/415 �)
I 1
86/48
m a
m,oM
116/327
105/57
LindemmeerN o
Take
315/202 —)
MOUNTAIN
324/197 —So
w
vNi 1��1 v\i
i` 5/3
(� 14/9
'Oa N
H
36/23
C
J
226/630�
N
5/5 ---)
ITr
134/91 —
yPjmN
O O M
'r— 48/98
d V N
E— 115/107
149/110 E VINE DR
35/78. T
102/ 146 --1
iTr
110/121-3w
o
ONO
NNN
FIGURE 11
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Short Term Total Traffic
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
MARCII 27. 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTER HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2001
TABLE 3
Short Term Intersection Operations - Without Project
Peak Hour LOS
Intersection Control Movement AM PM
CR 52 and CR ii
Two -Way Stop
EB
B
B
WB
B
B
CR 52 and CR 9
Two -Way Stop
EB
A
A
WB
A
A
Country Club and CR ii
Two -Way Stop
EB
B
F
WB
C
C
Country Club and Lemay
All -Way Stop
EB
B
C
WB
C
C
NB
B
E
SB
B
B
Vine and Lemay
Signal
EB
C
F
WB
F
F
NB
B
E
SB
D
C
Overall
D
E
With the addition of the Lind project traffic, and the completion of the other development
projects in the area, some of the study intersections continue to degrade, and fail, as shown in
Table 4. CR 52 and CR 9 continues to operate acceptably. However, Vine and Lemay, CR 52
and CR 11, and the two study intersections on Country Club continue to fail in the short-term
condition.
It should also be noted that the full development of the Richard's Lake Phase II project, which is
located on the northwest corner of CR 52 and CRI I and which is not yet approved, was assumed
in the short-term analysis. This development alone contributes 3,441 daily trips to the roadway
network in the project area. Only approximately 50% of the Richard's Lake Phase I project and
only 25% of the Gillespie Farms project traffic was added for the 2005 background traffic
' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
MARCH 22, 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES CDP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
' Short-term total traffic projections represent the background traffic with the addition of the
' project traffic associated with the full development of the Lind project. Long-term background
traffic projections reflect analysis of the North Front Range Phase 3 model, recent traffic study
projections, and the NCHRP 255 intersection balancing process. Long-term total traffic includes
the full buildout of the Lind project and the long-term distribution changes associated with the
network improvements and growth plans for the area. Total traffic projections are presented in
Figure 11 and Figure 12.
1
Short -Term Operations
' The current network is beginning to fail to adequately support both the projected background
short-term traffic growth and the project related traffic growth in the study area. Key
' intersections were evaluated with and without the project traffic for the short-term study year of
2005. As Table 3 below indicates, a number of the intersections in the study area are either
failing or approaching failure in the short-term background condition. The intersection of
Country Club and CR 11 is failing for the eastbound left movement in the PM peak hour, and the
' intersection of Country Club and Lemay is at LOS E for the northbound movement.
' These conditions have not been identified by previous studies, partly because cumulative effects
of the development in this area are only now being considered. It should be noted, however, that
the short-term conditions assume that each of the developments included in the background
' traffic would be constructed and occupied by 2005 per their original projections.
t
' I.SA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27, 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
recent traffic impact studies. There are some changes in distribution between the short and long-
term projections that are associated with the planned extension of CR 11 south to Vine Dr., the
realignment of Mountain Vista Rd., and the improvement of Timberline to 6 lanes. The short
' and long-term distribution assumptions are presented in Figure 8 and expected project traffic
assignment is illustrated in Figure 9 (short-term) and Figure 10 (long-term).
' IMPACT ANALYSIS
Roadway Improvements
' There only short-term roadway improvements planned for the project area are the conversion of
Country Club and CR 11 to a four -legged intersection with two-way stop control to provide
' access to the Gillespie Farms development. Relevant long-term improvements identified in the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan include the
' following:
• New north -south collector immediately east of CR 11 from CR 52 to Conifer which
' originates on the east side of CR 11 across from Brightwater Dr. in Richard's Lake
• Improvement of CR 52 to 2-lane Minor Arterial standards from CR 11 to I-25
• Extension of CR 11 south from Mountain Vista Dr. to Vine Dr. as a 2-lane Minor Arterial
• Extension of Conifer from College Ave. to CR 9E (Timberline)
' • Grade separated intersections at Vine/L.emay and Vine/CR 9E (Timberline)
• Improvement of CR 9E (Timberline) to 6-lanes
Traffic Impacts
' Key intersections, which were identified by the City Traffic Engineer, were analyzed for
operating conditions with the full buildout the Lind project for both the short term (2005) and the
' long term (2020) conditions. Short-term background traffic projections reflect a 2% annual
growth in background traffic, and the addition of the traffic related to the recent development
' proposals in the area (new data was provided by traffic operations staff for the final revision).
u
Rickmd'.r
Lake r.
c^
N
m
I
P
U
u
198/145
RICHARDS LAKE RD
CR.
—y
29/21Tr
(--175/128 '
NN
MN
iC
�
117/85 Long:
f' m
78/198 --4 r
130/331
\
m
N
� `
P
4-- 39/99
MC
Lindenmeiee�
88/64 —)
117/85 —y
n
xoarx
0 .25 .5 1
f,
MILES
L S A
LEGEND
VISTA
FIGURE 10
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Short Term Project Traffic Assignment
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
L S A
LEGEND
- 0-5H PERCENTAGE OF TRIPS
FIGURE 9
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Long Term Project Trip Distribution
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
L S A
LEGEND
- 0-5%0 PERCENTAGE OF TRIPS
FIGURE 8
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Short Term Project Trip Distribution
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. 9/8/00
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
MARCH 27. 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
again in alignment with the existing Brightwater Drive in Richard's Lake, and a proposed
collector in Gillespie Farms. The conceptual site plan is presented in Figure 7.
' Project Traffic
Site traffic projections were estimated using the 6`h Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual,
' as requested by the City Traffic Engineer. The Single -Family detached ITE category (210) was
used to generate trips for the single and multi -family units to provide a conservative estimate,
' and the General Office (710) and Specialty Retail (814) categories were used for the remaining
commercial square footage. Daily and AM and PM peak hour trip generation associated with the
' development is specified in Table 2. The analysis assumes no transit, ridesharing, bicycle
commuting, or telecommuting mode split adjustments, and as such, is a conservative estimate of
vehicular trip generation.
'
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
Land Use
Size
DUs
ITE Code
Rate
ADT
Enter
AM
Exit
Total
Enter
PM
Exit
Total
'Parcel
A
Single Family/Multi Family
10.77
acres 75
210
9-57
721
15
44
58
49
28
77
B
Single Family/Multi Family
1o.62
acres 74
210
9.57
711
14
43
57
49
27
76
C
Single Family/Multi Family
33.07
acres 231
210
9,17
2211
45
134
178
'1'
85
236
'
D
Single Family/Multi Family
6.47
acres 45
210
9.57
433
9
26
35
30
17
46
E
Commercial
10000
sf
710
II .01
110
14
2
HIS3
12
I5
F
Single Family/Multi Family
5.96
acres 72
210
9.57
684
14
41
55
47
26
73
G
Single Family/Multi Family
7.85
acres 63
210
9.57
6o1
12
36
48
41
23
64
'
H
Single Family/Multi Family
6.51
acres 78
210
9.57
748
15
45
6o
51
29
8o
1
Commercial
10000
sf
710
I1.01
LID
14
2
16
3
12
15
J
Neighborhood Center
30000
sf
814
40.67
1220
41
6
47
8
37
45
K
Single Family/Multi Family
3.98
acres 36
210
9.57
343
7
21
28
23
13
37
L
Single Family/Multi Family
2.43
acres 22
210
9.57
tog
4
13
17
14
8
22
M
Single Family/Multi Family
8.63
acres 69
210
9.57
661
13
40
53
45
25
70
O
Single Family/Multi Family
17.93
acres 126
210
9,57
1201
24
12
97
82
46
128
P
Single Family/Multi Family
4.44
acres 36
210
9.57
340
7
21
27
23
13
36
Q
Single Family/Multi Family
8.6
acres 69
210
9.57
658
13
40
53
45
25
70
996
Io967
26o
584
845
663
427
logo
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Distribution assumptions
for the trips generated
by the
Lind development site are based on
existing land uses,
activity
and employment
center
locations,
the
existing
roadway
network,
and
'
11
LS A FIGURE %
LEGEND Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Project Site Plan
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
tLSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27, 2001
CENTEX HOMES OD?
REVISED MARCH 2O01
' the project site is accounted for in the traffic model. Model volumes were used where possible,
' unless the sum of the long-term project generated traffic projections from one or more of the
development proposals in the project area indicated a higher turn volume, in which case these
' volumes were used. (Traffic from Richard's Lake Phase I was redistributed for this analysis
since the TIS was completed in 1996 and the roadway improvements were not consistent with
fthe current Master Street Plan.)
' PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
1 Development Character
The Lind development will add up to 996 new homes in a mix of multi -family and single family
configurations. A neighborhood commercial component will also provide specialty retail, and
possibly some office space totaling approximately 50,000 square feet. Total daily trip generation
is not expected to exceed 10,967 trips per day. Surrounding land use is primarily residential with
' a rural character.
' Construction is expected to begin by 2003, with full development expected over 4 years.
Development will likely occur in a series of 2 phases, each approximately 2 years in duration.
Construction will begin on the south edge of the site and move north over the course of
construction.
Primary access to the site is planned via 2 collector streets, both with stop controlled access
' points along both CR 11 and CR 52. Four additional local street access points on CR 11 and 2
additional local street access points on CR 52 will supplement access to the project and fulfill the
660 foot access requirement. The outer road will align with the proposed collector in the Master
Street Plan on CR 52 and will align with proposed roadways in both the Richard's Lake
' development and the Gillespie Farms development. Two roadway connections to the property
east of the site will be provided, crossing the No. 8 Outlet Ditch, as well as three pedestrian
' bridges. The inner road will be located generally as indicated on the Master Street Plan, and
U
Richard's v o
.. .,., ..'
Lake ': 00
'V-45/125
(-10/10
� 10/10 CR 52
,'t
r 10/10--
10/10 --- )
ITI
�2o
o
10/10 —y
e
_ \�_n\
1� 85/155 285
o,
Pondi• f
25/10--T
195/120 --4
1 1 1
170/50 —y
o c�
t'rNP
h O N
., Lindenmtier9, o
`.-LA
_„�aoocoio
10/10
r
135/102
J V
I C-20/10
w
J
80/145 — *
0
95/175 —) I 1
RIM
85/45—� �N
no\
�L N
•a — v
185/205 o �
0--• 570/530
1� �1
360/300 E ME DR
80/135
410/670 �)
1
66/66
N
oN�n
<� P
O a)v
N t+1 h
O '
xoarx
0 .25 .S 1
MILES -- •
L S A
LEGEND
��AM�FM TRAFFIC COUNTS
1r Xl(M
0
O n O
2,22
ft— 10/10
��I
t-10/110
y
10/35
5/25 --l'
i T
115/40
115/70 --y
00
o
N
P
FIGURE 6
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Long Term Background Traffic
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
P
K
U
U
Richard's
co
Ter 7
Lake
Nn
\off
o n—
— 10/11
o�M
o n M
6/6
Lake
J
I
444//6 CR 52
,6
12/12
1��C
IBC
1/0—i
I
I I
0/2—i
1I1
M
52/33 —y
^-'m
sC-5/24
E-- 170/139
N —o
1�
SI-215/142
1'Ong�
Pond
7/10
89/217 ---)
I I
E16/48 ---I,
M I
O-N
77/228
105/57
MOUNTAIN'
Lindenmeier�
M
227/138 �1'
' ��
Lakem o
207/112 ,1r
HO i
5/3
<
/
o n
IC
�L
36/23
o Q
w
0
96/299 �'
J
5/5
O
^
134/91 �,
U
Pnr`
N
NN-
48/98
1 I (— 115/107
1� S Z—149/110 E
35/78 --%'
I� � j�
102/146 �)
I I
110/121 —30
o
r`PN
O P O
O
U 4T 11
0 .25 .5 1
MILES
L S A
LEGEND
AM/PM TRAFFIC COUNTS
VVYY
FIGURE 5
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Short Term Background Traffic
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 918/00
' LSA ASSOCIA9'ES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27, 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
' FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Short Term Background Traffic
tBackground traffic was projected using an annual growth rate of 2% on the surrounding roadway
' network. Existing traffic volumes were factored using this growth rate to approximate traffic
conditions in 2005. In addition, the project traffic related to recent development proposals in the
area was added to the background traffic growth. Traffic generated by the initial phase (-50%)
of Richard's Lake Phase 1 (approved), the full development of Richard's Lake Phase H (ODP
submitted), short term (25%) Gillespie Farms (approved), and the short range traffic from the
Hearthfire, WalMart, Old Town North, New Belgium, and Waterfield/Waterglen developments
' was added to the study intersections for analysis of short term background conditions. While the
total traffic generated by the full development of all of these projects will require additional long
term improvements, as most of the studies indicate, the short term assignment projections for the
likely 2005 condition are used in this report to estimate the short term improvement needs. Since
some of the 2% growth assumption should be related to these developments, the background
traffic illustrated in Figure 5 should represent a conservative estimate of traffic growth in the
' project area.
' Long Term Background Traffic
Long-term background traffic projections were initially arrived at through the application of the
2% annual growth rate to a 20-year period. However, since the development of the Mountain
Vista Subarea Plan, and the network changes identified in the Fort Collins Master Street Plan
' will likely change traffic distribution patterns, the North Front Range Phase 3 traffic model was
used to project long term traffic conditions in the project area. This model includes an AM and
' PM peak period analysis, and these results were used to arrive at the projected 2020 background
traffic projections illustrated in Figure 6. Turn movements produced by the model were
compared with existing turn movements, the NCHRP 255 intersection balancing process, and
projected buildout traffic assignment of the adjacent development projects to arrive at the
' projected conditions. Lind project traffic was removed from this estimate, since development on
�I�
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
MARCH 27. 2001
'TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES OUP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
TABLE I
Existing Intersection Operations
Intersection
Control
Movement
Peak Hour LOS
AM PM
CR 52 and CR ii
Two -Way Stop
EB
A
A
WB
A
A
CR 52 and CR g
Two -Way Stop
EB
A
A
WB
A
A
Mountain Vista and CR ge
Two -Way Stop
NB
B
B
Country Club and CR II
One -Way Stop
EB
A
A
Country Club and Lemay
All -Way Stop
EB
A
A
WB
A
A
NB
A
B
SB
A
A
Vine and Lemay
Signal
EB
C
C
WB
C
C
NB
A
B
SB
B
A
Overall
B
B
F.
RD
P
U
u
Richard's
Lake _ � o
terry o v u�i
T-- 5/0 o d M
T_ 5/5
Lake J I
j j �
i
i 4//5 CR 52
1111/11
le
1�''-
Ls 1/0- 4
1T1 0/2-4
ITI
6/4
0/0 7,
M
Long
Pond
Lindenmeier
Lake
d
P < N
� N �
40/86
I
1
(— 70/61
1�
�I
�P-- 92/66
11/30
64/91 —)
ITr
83/63 '
M
M OP
\f7\
V M1�
M M M
0 .25 xonni 5 1
MILES
L S A
LEGEND
AM/PM PEAK HOUR
1r )o�m TRAFFIC COUNTS
(— 41/112
,1— 95/52
123/72
94/41 :: �11
O P
O N
N M
N C
FIGURE 4
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Recent Peak HourTraffic
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27, 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
No transit service is available within '/a mile of the project area, and no sidewalks are constructed
in the immediate area. Existing bicycle facilities in the area provide good north -south
connectivity and consist of signed and striped bike lanes on both sides of the following roadway
segments:
• CR 11 between Rangeview and Mountain Vista
• Mountain Vista between CR 11 and CR 9E
• CR 9E from Mountain Vista south to Vine and beyond.
Existing Traffic
Weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were conducted at the intersections of
CR 52 and CR 11, CR 52 and CR 9, and Mountain Vista and CR 9E. Count data for other key
intersections were collected from recent traffic studies and/or the Fort Collins signal timing plan
and then factored by 2% annually to arrive at the year 2000 intersection volumes for level of
service analysis. Existing traffic conditions are presented in Figure 4.
Existing Level of Service
All intersections in the immediate study area are currently operating at level of service B or
better as shown in Table 1. Relatively low traffic volumes in the area do not create significant
delays at any of the study intersections. Level of Service calculations for signalized and
unsignalized intersections reflect the Highway Capacity Manual procedures and are included in
the Technical Appendix.
m
�
a
U
u
j
'
• Richaiid i
U
-^
rer
lake
Lake
�
'I
RICHARDS LAKE RD CR 52
yti?-
Long
1
landemmeier,.
T
MOUNTAIN VISTA
Lake
I�
w
a
w
c�
w
w
O
u
T'
'I
E VINE DR
1
0 .25 wo.rx .5 1
MILES
LS A
FIGURE 3
LEGEND
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
TURN MOVEMENTS
Existing
Roadway Geometry and Traffic Control
STOP SIGN
CS SIGNAL
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
L S A
LEGEND
LOCATION OF PROJECT
FIGURE 2
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Project Site Plan
' SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. 'TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 22. 2001 CENTEX IIOMF.S OUP
REVISED MARCH 2001
1
• Special attention to the adequacy of the Vine/Lemay intersection and the City of Fort
' Collins' Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
• Pedestrian analysis for Residential to Residential and Residential to Recreation
' destinations
' Following the initial submittal, additional comments were received from the City of Fort Collins
Traffic Operations staff. It was suggested that traffic generated by the Gillespie Farms,
Richard's Lake Phase 1, Hearthfire, and Storybook developments also be considered in the
traffic impact analysis, and that two additional intersections (Country Club Rd..& CR 11, and
Country Club Rd. & N. Lemay Ave.) also be included in the analysis. This additional analysis
' has been incorporated into this revised version of the Lind Traffic Impact Analysis.
' ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
' Existing Transportation System
The Lind Development is bordered on the west by County Road 11 and on the south by County
Road 52 (Richard's Lake Rd.). The development is bordered on the north by the No. 8 Outlet
Canal, which runs southwest from CR 11 to CR 52, as seen in Figure 2.
County Road 11 is a 2-lane collector with adequate shoulder width for emergency use. The
roadway does not include on street bicycle facilities, sidewalks, or curb and gutter. CR 11 serves
as a north -south route to residential development in the project area. The posted speed limit is
' 40mph south of CR 52 and 45mph north of CR 52.
' County Road 52 is also a 2-lane collector, which is paved west of CR 11, gravel between CR 11
' and CR 9, and paved again east of CR 9. No bicycle facilities are currently provided on CR 52
and the section does not include curb and gutter or sidewalks. Existing lane geometry and traffic
' control is presented in Figure 3.
L S A
LEGEND
LOCATION OF PROJECT
FIGURE 1
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
Project Location
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/8/00
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 27. 2001 CENTEX HOMES ODP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
INTRODUCTION
This transportation impact analysis study describes the transportation implications of the Centex
Homes Lind Overall Development Plan. The site is located on the northeast corner of County
Road 52 (Richard's Lake Rd.) and County Road 11. Development on the site will include a mix
of up to 996 single family and multifamily homes and approximately 50,000 square feet of
neighborhood oriented office, retail, and commercial development. A map of the project location
is presented in Figure 1.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (Revised March 27, 1998)
document was used to prepare this report. Accordingly, the analysis includes the following
sections:
• Analysis of Existing Conditions
• Future Background Traffic Projections
• Project Traffic Projections
• Impact Analysis
• Conclusions
' • Technical Appendix
Per the TIS Guidelines, an initial scooping meeting with Eric Bracke, the City Traffic Engineer,
' was held to establish the scope of this analysis, identify study intersections, and determine base
assumptions for the study. It was agreed that the analysis should incorporate the following
' elements:
• Projections for 2005 and 2020
' • A 2% future traffic growth rate
• Impact analysis for intersections at:
o CR 11/CR 52 (Richard's Lake)
' o CR 52/CR 9
o Vine/Lemay
' • Recent Traffic studies for Waterfield, Waterglen, and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
7
' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
MARCH 27. 2001
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CENTEX HOMES CDP
REVISED MARCH 2O01
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Map of Project Location
Figure 2. Project Site Detail
Figure 3. Existing Roadway Geometry
Figure 4. Recent Peak Hour Traffic
Figure 5. Short Term Background Traffic
Figure 6. Long Term Background Traffic
Figure 7. Project Site Plan
Figure 8. Short Term Project Trip Distribution
Figure 9. Long Term Project Trip Distribution
Figure 10. Project Traffic Assignment
Figure 11. Short Term Total Traffic
Figure 12. Long Term Total Traffic
Table 1. Existing Intersection Operation
' Table 2. Project Trip Generation
Table 3. Short -Term Intersection Operation (Without Project)
' Table 4. Short -Term Intersection Operation (With Project)
Table 5. Long -Term Intersection Operation (Without Project)
Table 6. Long -Term Intersection Operation (With Project)
' Table 7. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
Table 8. Bicycle LOS Worksheet
Table 9. Transit LOS Worksheet
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Centex Homes Overall Development Plan
FORT COLLINS9 COLORADO
REVISED MAY 2001
L S A